Can you really be friends if your political beliefs are much different?

[Wrenchturner]

Right, but again, regardless of which way you lean that's a religious opinion. And you cannot make laws purely based on religious opinion in a society that holds freedom of religion as a core value. The government must enable freedom of religion, and allow conservatives to believe what they want and to order their lives around their beliefs, and allow other people to disagree.

It's a scientific and ethical question, not a religious one.  Conception is not a religious concept.  I don't believe that a fertilized human egg is a person, but it's probably a person at 8+months.  Late term elective abortions are generally banned for this reason.  The problem is there's no hard line during development from conception to birth.

The unborn that are soon to be born should have all the considerations of a sovereign life unless a VERY strong argument is made to the contrary.  Those unborn are protected with force, to the point of the conversation.

Personally I don't think the abortion debate will ever be resolved because of the greyness of fetal development.

An analogy would be trans rights--am I required to recognize someone's personal identification with a gender that conflicts with their genetic chromosomal makeup?  Should I call this a religious position?

I don't think characterizing the conflict as a religious vs. scientific one is useful, since there are subjective areas which aren't so simple.

[DadJokes]

I don’t think dad jokes was taking that position personally, just that he was trying to illustrate

Hmmmm... When you are casually flinging accusations of "murder" - I'd think certain manner of illustration should be considered very ill-mannered and deserve proportionate response.

I'm stating what people on the right think. Some might call it playing devil's advocate. It helps to actually understand your opponent's thought process.

There are debate points against what you and @sherr have said, but this isn't a thread about abortion, so I'll drop it.

The most important point that needs to be understood is whether the "opponent" is trying to impost their religious beliefs on others or not. If they are, they are against the constitution and the basis on which America is founded.

It is a constitutional question, not an "abortion" question.

Can we agree on this much?

As long as the "opponent" is not trying to impost their religious beliefs on other people via legislation, I'm sure a reasoned discussion should be possible.

I don't think they'd agree that the belief that life starts at conception is a religious belief.

They'd consider it a logical belief that aligns with their religion. There are atheists who also believe that life begins at conception. Is that a religious belief?

Anyway, I won't speak again on abortion. My point is that people must be willing to view things from others' perspective, or nothing is ever going to change.

[sherr]

There are debate points against what you and @sherr have said, but this isn't a thread about abortion, so I'll drop it.

That's fine and I don't mean to be picking a fight, but I think my main point got dropped in the mean time. It's not a matter of abortion in particular being right or wrong. It's a general trend of liberty vs illiberalism. No one is trying to force anyone else to have an abortion, for example. No one is trying to force people to marry someone of the same sex, or even pastors to officiate gay weddings (although yes I know that was a common talking point / lie from the right a few years ago).

If we can agree on the core tenet of liberty then I have no problem with being friends with people who disagree with me. You don't believe in gay marriage? Fine, you probably shouldn't marry someone of the same sex. Oh you're trying to force everyone else in the country to comply with your religious beliefs? Now we have a problem.

Not really. Many people on the "left" would not be comfortable with:
- Exploitative market conditions
- Paying your way into a school or job
- Nepotism

Yet those are things which do not require any breaking of anyone's consent.

You argue against the use of "religious beliefs", which I understand because I take religion to be an essentially irrational and dogmatic construct, but to someone who's religious, (and even in a larger sense), there's not much difference between religious dogma and a philosophical tenet (like the importance of liberty or the notion that all men are created equal). In a way, they all boil down to first principles that are not supported by anything else, but are mere dogma.

I really don't understand your point at all. Did I say that there should be no constraints on liberty at all (nepotism, etc)? No I didn't.

Okay sure, let's assume that assume that "liberty" and "all men are created equal" is "mere dogma", exactly the same as conservative religions beliefs. Those are the dogmatic axioms that are written into the constitution, and therefore the ones the government must orient itself around protecting.

[ctuser1]

I don't think they'd agree that the belief that life starts at conception is a religious belief.

They'd consider it a logical belief that aligns with their religion. There are atheists who also believe that life begins at conception. Is that a religious belief?

Anyway, I won't speak again on abortion. My point is that people must be willing to view things from others' perspective, or nothing is ever going to change.

Great.

So it seems to me that the decision(s) should be left to the women whose body is in question!! At least till consensus evolves on whether the belief is religious, logical, scientific or something else!!

Or, perhaps you want to lend some sort of credence to those "opponents" arguing that they can legislate over someone else's body based on unsettled beliefs and anybody else who thinks otherwise, including the women in question, don't matter?

What was the definition of Fascism again?

[sherr]

My point is that people must be willing to view things from others' perspective, or nothing is ever going to change.

And my point is that "liberals" are willing to do that, and "conservatives" generally aren't. Or at least liberals are willing to allow other people to act differently than them, even if they don't understand it.

[jeninco]

My point is that people must be willing to view things from others' perspective, or nothing is ever going to change.

And my point is that "liberals" are willing to do that, and "conservatives" generally aren't. Or at least liberals are willing to allow other people to act differently than them, even if they don't understand it.

A clearer way to put this point might be this:

Do you view all other adult human beings as equal to you in terms of their rights and responsibilities? Even though they make decisions regarding themselves that you don't agree with?

If yes (or generally yes), then we can have a respectful conversation, although we may not be "friends". If no, then ... honestly, you need to go do some self examination. I see no reason to waste time having a "respectful" conversation with someone who views me (or people I love, or other people in general) as less then fully human. Even if it's couched as somehow "rational" or "biblical" (or "thugs") or whatever lame-ass dog-whistle excuse is in vogue today.

[Wrenchturner]

There's an algorithm at work here.  Liberals defer to the variance, conservatives defer to the mean.

In the normative case, a conceived human will be born as a sovereign individual in nine months.  There are exceptions to this, but they do not compromise the general rule.  The territory between the variance and the mean will be fraught.

In the normative case, XY chromosomes produce a male mammal.  There are exceptions to this, but the do not compromise the general rule.  The territory between the variance and the mean will be fraught.

Liberals see conservatives as blind to the tails of the curve(rigid and unyielding), and conservatives see liberals as blind to the vast middle(incoherent and lacking clear boundaries).

[ctuser1]

There's an algorithm at work here.  Liberals defer to the variance, conservatives defer to the mean.

In the normative case, a conceived human will be born as a sovereign individual in nine months.  There are exceptions to this, but they do not compromise the general rule.  The territory between the variance and the mean will be fraught.

In the normative case, XY chromosomes produce a male mammal.  There are exceptions to this, but the do not compromise the general rule.  The territory between the variance and the mean will be fraught.

Liberals see conservatives as blind to the tails of the curve(rigid and unyielding), and conservatives see liberals as blind to the vast middle(incoherent and lacking clear boundaries).

I don't know which "conservatives" you have encountered, and where.

If I was to play along with your analogy, then the ones out in the wild in the US behave very differently than you say. They use the "mean", with a (barely) hidden agenda to preserve and propagate the interests of the billionaires and the religious patriarchy.

Fascism anyone? Or at least Oligarchy if we don't want to go that far!!

[Wrenchturner]

I don't know which "conservatives" you have encountered, and where.

If I was to play along with your analogy, then the ones out in the wild in the US behave very differently than you say. They use the "mean", with a (barely) hidden agenda to preserve and propagate the interests of the billionaires and the religious patriarchy.

Fascism anyone? Or at least Oligarchy if we don't want to go that far!!

Most conservatives are not pro-life without exceptions.  Instances of rape, or risk to the mother, or severe deformity etc.  They do not like abortion that functions as a post-contraceptive or enables irresponsibility.

Most liberals are not trans-absolutists.  They don't support trans-children, or athletes that "transition" for the sake of a short term performance advantage.

There's a toxic switcheroo that occurs.  It's the media's fault, and probably a psychological artifact too.

Antifa is leftist therefore liberals are my enemy.  Liberal: "I don't really like antifa; who is your enemy?"
Pro-lifers are conservative therefore conservatives are my enemy.  Conservative: "I don't really like pro-life; who is your enemy?"

We put each other in boxes, defined by the margins, and assume people in those boxes are completely diverged from our opinions, even though there is considerable overlap.


Correct me if I'm wrong. 

[PoutineLover]

I am definitely on the left and my line is drawn where someone's beliefs start to affect other people's rights. You can believe whatever you want in the privacy of your own home and your own body, but that right stops where it starts to affect other people. For abortion, if you don't want one, don't get one. Same with gay marriage. But don't tell me I can't, or that no one can just because you don't think it's right. And it's not because I don't believe a fetus is alive, it's because a woman is a fully autonomous human being who cannot be forced to carry a not-yet-independent, potential human being that cannot survive without her consent and life support.
With other political beliefs, it's my right to choose not to associate with or like people who are racist or homophobic or any other "political" belief that dehumanizes others. I'm happy to discuss real political beliefs like taxation, social services, immigration, or health care, but when it comes to the rights of all human beings to live in peace and enjoy full access to their rights in society, that's non-negotiable and I can't be friends with someone who doesn't believe in equality for all human beings.

[GuitarStv]

And it's not because I don't believe a fetus is alive, it's because a woman is a fully autonomous human being who cannot be forced to carry a not-yet-independent, potential human being that cannot survive without her consent and life support.

Yeah, this is where I come from on the abortion topic too.  I don't care when life starts - it's a debate that's beside the point.  The life of a fetus doesn't override the life of the woman carrying the fetus, so abortions have to be legal.

[Chris22]

I am definitely on the left and my line is drawn where someone's beliefs start to affect other people's rights. You can believe whatever you want in the privacy of your own home and your own body, but that right stops where it starts to affect other people. For abortion, if you don't want one, don't get one. Same with gay marriage. But don't tell me I can't, or that no one can just because you don't think it's right. And it's not because I don't believe a fetus is alive, it's because a woman is a fully autonomous human being who cannot be forced to carry a not-yet-independent, potential human being that cannot survive without her consent and life support.
With other political beliefs, it's my right to choose not to associate with or like people who are racist or homophobic or any other "political" belief that dehumanizes others. I'm happy to discuss real political beliefs like taxation, social services, immigration, or health care, but when it comes to the rights of all human beings to live in peace and enjoy full access to their rights in society, that's non-negotiable and I can't be friends with someone who doesn't believe in equality for all human beings.

But there are plenty of situations where this isn’t cut and dried. For instance, the trans bathroom debate. How do you square up a trans persons right to use facilities they are comfortable with a non-trans persons right to not be confronted by a person with the opposite equipment in a locker room?  Or the sports question?  Or the gay wedding cake debate? 

These are highly nuanced positions and situations, but the left loves to claim if you don’t agree with their position fully you are homophobic/transaphobic and don’t believe in equality.

[Kris]

I don't know which "conservatives" you have encountered, and where.

If I was to play along with your analogy, then the ones out in the wild in the US behave very differently than you say. They use the "mean", with a (barely) hidden agenda to preserve and propagate the interests of the billionaires and the religious patriarchy.

Fascism anyone? Or at least Oligarchy if we don't want to go that far!!

Most conservatives are not pro-life without exceptions.  Instances of rape, or risk to the mother, or severe deformity etc.  They do not like abortion that functions as a post-contraceptive or enables irresponsibility.

Most liberals are not trans-absolutists.  They don't support trans-children, or athletes that "transition" for the sake of a short term performance advantage.

 

On the first point: If most conservatives are okay with "murder" in instances of rape, or risk to the mother, or severe deformity, doesn't that make them kind of hypocrites?

On the second point... I don't know what you mean by "trans-children," but I think you're wrong. Most liberals I know who believe in trans rights support children not being forced to present as the gender they strongly do not believe themselves to be, because it is so traumatic for them to do so.

If what you mean is that they don't support children going through gender reassignment surgery, there are medical reasons for this. It's not some sort of "belief" issue.

And as far as athletes that "transition" for the sake of a short-term performance advantage... pretty sure that's just a made-up boogeyman scenario by the right.

[sherr]

I am definitely on the left and my line is drawn where someone's beliefs start to affect other people's rights. You can believe whatever you want in the privacy of your own home and your own body, but that right stops where it starts to affect other people. For abortion, if you don't want one, don't get one. Same with gay marriage. But don't tell me I can't, or that no one can just because you don't think it's right. And it's not because I don't believe a fetus is alive, it's because a woman is a fully autonomous human being who cannot be forced to carry a not-yet-independent, potential human being that cannot survive without her consent and life support.
With other political beliefs, it's my right to choose not to associate with or like people who are racist or homophobic or any other "political" belief that dehumanizes others. I'm happy to discuss real political beliefs like taxation, social services, immigration, or health care, but when it comes to the rights of all human beings to live in peace and enjoy full access to their rights in society, that's non-negotiable and I can't be friends with someone who doesn't believe in equality for all human beings.

But there are plenty of situations where this isn’t cut and dried. For instance, the trans bathroom debate. How do you square up a trans persons right to use facilities they are comfortable with a non-trans persons right to not be confronted by a person with the opposite equipment in a locker room?  Or the sports question?  Or the gay wedding cake debate? 

These are highly nuanced positions and situations, but the left loves to claim if you don’t agree with their position fully you are homophobic/transaphobic and don’t believe in equality.

Has anyone here claimed that they couldn't be friends with someone who had differing views on those positions? I haven't seen one. There's grey areas on every issue. What people have trouble accepting is the illiberalism when it is cut and dried.

And let's be honest, how many people were there really that were on the side of the bakers in the "gay wedding cake" issue who weren't also opposed to gay marriage in general? I'm sure there are a few. But probably not many. People are not fooled by a "well I'm opposed to your rights in general and in all ways, but THIS! THIS is a bridge too far!" position.

[ctuser1]

I don't know which "conservatives" you have encountered, and where.

If I was to play along with your analogy, then the ones out in the wild in the US behave very differently than you say. They use the "mean", with a (barely) hidden agenda to preserve and propagate the interests of the billionaires and the religious patriarchy.

Fascism anyone? Or at least Oligarchy if we don't want to go that far!!

Most conservatives are not pro-life without exceptions.  Instances of rape, or risk to the mother, or severe deformity etc.  They do not like abortion that functions as a post-contraceptive or enables irresponsibility.

Most liberals are not trans-absolutists.  They don't support trans-children, or athletes that "transition" for the sake of a short term performance advantage.

There's a toxic switcheroo that occurs.  It's the media's fault, and probably a psychological artifact too.

Antifa is leftist therefore liberals are my enemy.  Liberal: "I don't really like antifa; who is your enemy?"
Pro-lifers are conservative therefore conservatives are my enemy.  Conservative: "I don't really like pro-life; who is your enemy?"

We put each other in boxes, defined by the margins, and assume people in those boxes are completely diverged from our opinions, even though there is considerable overlap.


Correct me if I'm wrong.

The "confusion" exists if you go by what people "say" (0).

Look at what they do (1). Look at the implications, and their willingness to consider the implication and adjust their positions accordingly (2).

(1) would indicate their actual positions, more so than (0).
(2) would indicate if they are zealots or reasonable.

If someone is a zealot, he would be automatically wrong in scenarios that his worldview did not consider. This is a mathematical truth - I can set up a formal system with axioms and rules of inferences and prove it trivially.

Once you start following this algorithm, and then decide how to treat points of views, the confusion you wrote about largely disappears.**


**This is not to say the approach I outlined is perfect. There is no such thing. It is just the best available approach to navigate the logical confusion in the world.

[Chris22]

I am definitely on the left and my line is drawn where someone's beliefs start to affect other people's rights. You can believe whatever you want in the privacy of your own home and your own body, but that right stops where it starts to affect other people. For abortion, if you don't want one, don't get one. Same with gay marriage. But don't tell me I can't, or that no one can just because you don't think it's right. And it's not because I don't believe a fetus is alive, it's because a woman is a fully autonomous human being who cannot be forced to carry a not-yet-independent, potential human being that cannot survive without her consent and life support.
With other political beliefs, it's my right to choose not to associate with or like people who are racist or homophobic or any other "political" belief that dehumanizes others. I'm happy to discuss real political beliefs like taxation, social services, immigration, or health care, but when it comes to the rights of all human beings to live in peace and enjoy full access to their rights in society, that's non-negotiable and I can't be friends with someone who doesn't believe in equality for all human beings.

But there are plenty of situations where this isn’t cut and dried. For instance, the trans bathroom debate. How do you square up a trans persons right to use facilities they are comfortable with a non-trans persons right to not be confronted by a person with the opposite equipment in a locker room?  Or the sports question?  Or the gay wedding cake debate? 

These are highly nuanced positions and situations, but the left loves to claim if you don’t agree with their position fully you are homophobic/transaphobic and don’t believe in equality.

Has anyone here claimed that they couldn't be friends with someone who had differing views on those positions? I haven't seen one. There's grey areas on every issue. What people have trouble accepting is the illiberalism when it is cut and dried.

Like I said, lots of liberals say things like “I can’t be friends with a bigot/homophobe/etc” but then draw that line pretty far over.

And let's be honest, how many people were there really that were on the side of the bakers in the "gay wedding cake" issue who weren't also opposed to gay marriage in general? I'm sure there are a few. But probably not many. People are not fooled by a "well I'm opposed to your rights in general and in all ways, but THIS! THIS is a bridge too far!" position.

Disagree. I think there are plenty of “silent majority” Conservatives who really aren’t opposed to gay rights and marriage at all, but find things like trans sports, gay wedding cakes, etc, as pushing past the “gay rights” and into the “minority dictating to the majority”. 

[MonkeyJenga]

There's an algorithm at work here.  Liberals defer to the variance, conservatives defer to the mean.

In the normative case, a conceived human will be born as a sovereign individual in nine months.  There are exceptions to this, but they do not compromise the general rule.  The territory between the variance and the mean will be fraught.

40-60% of fertilized eggs do not survive through a live birth. (source)

Antifa is leftist therefore liberals are my enemy.  Liberal: "I don't really like antifa; who is your enemy?"
Pro-lifers are conservative therefore conservatives are my enemy.  Conservative: "I don't really like pro-life; who is your enemy?"

We put each other in boxes, defined by the margins, and assume people in those boxes are completely diverged from our opinions, even though there is considerable overlap.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Antifa is not equivalent to being anti-abortion. 75% of Republicans identify as pro-life, and 32% believe abortion should be illegal with zero exceptions. (source) I can't find any numbers on antifa, but nobody would seriously argue that their numbers come close to anti-abortion sentiment on the right.

Anti-abortion pledges are in the GOP platform, and they have worked for decades to restrict access to family planning services. Democrats have not done the same with antifa.

[Fishindude]

I'm very conservative and have some very liberal friends.  We fight it out a bit and occasionally get into a heated discussion, but it ends there.
Both sides know they aren't going to change the others mind, and I really don't want to lose friends over politics.

And in reality, you can piss and moan all you want about what's going on in DC, but so far nothing too serious has come out of that place that has really negatively impacted our lives.
The media tries to yank all of our chains and keep us upset and mad so we keep watching their drivel.  Shut that crap off and you'll find that things really aren't too bad, and most people are pretty good folks.

[John Galt incarnate!]

Right, but again, regardless of which way you lean that's a religious opinion. And you cannot make laws purely based on religious opinion in a society that holds freedom of religion as a core value. The government must enable freedom of religion, and allow conservatives to believe what they want and to order their lives around their beliefs, and allow other people to disagree.

Under Everson's Establishment Clause analysis,  "neither [a state nor the Federal Government] can force nor influence a person...to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs."


The  liberty of the First Amendment's Establishment  Clause  extends to  one's positions on  social issues such as a woman's right to choose abortion. This extension means that  all have the option of basing their positions on "religious beliefs or disbeliefs."

[sherr]

And let's be honest, how many people were there really that were on the side of the bakers in the "gay wedding cake" issue who weren't also opposed to gay marriage in general? I'm sure there are a few. But probably not many. People are not fooled by a "well I'm opposed to your rights in general and in all ways, but THIS! THIS is a bridge too far!" position.

Disagree. I think there are plenty of “silent majority” Conservatives who really aren’t opposed to gay rights and marriage at all, but find things like trans sports, gay wedding cakes, etc, as pushing past the “gay rights” and into the “minority dictating to the majority”.

Wow, I just, entirely disagree. Those are exactly the same phrases that virtually all conservatives were using a few years ago when gay marriage was the issue of the day. I don't remember any significant pushback from conservatives towards allowing gay marriage, and certainly not from their elected representatives / commentators / talking heads. Which we would expect to see if they really were the "silent majority" of conservatives, right? The RNC decided 5 days ago to keep their anti-gay-marriage position as an official part of party platform.

This is nothing more that revisionist history. Many conservatives nowadays realize that they already lost on this issue, and have made their peace with it. That is very different from taking a principled stand towards liberty from the beginning.

[sherr]

Right, but again, regardless of which way you lean that's a religious opinion. And you cannot make laws purely based on religious opinion in a society that holds freedom of religion as a core value. The government must enable freedom of religion, and allow conservatives to believe what they want and to order their lives around their beliefs, and allow other people to disagree.

Under Everson's Establishment Clause analysis,  "neither [a state nor the Federal Government] can force nor influence a person...to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs."


The  liberty of the First Amendment's Establishment  Clause  extends to  one's positions on  social issues such as a woman's right to choose abortion. This extension means that  all have the option of basing their positions on "religious beliefs or disbeliefs."

That's great. Under the first amendment itself:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

If "marriage" is a religious institution then preventing gay people from getting married is prohibiting them from exercising their religion. If "marriage" is not a religious institution then there is literally no argument against allowing gay marriage. Plain and simple and obvious from the text itself.

You can go down the "state's rights" path if you want, but the same logic also applies to any state which guarantees the freedom of religion in the state constitution, and frankly I'm not interested in that argument anyway. I'm interested in what should be protected by law based on the principles of liberty, not in the particulars of how we arrive there.

Edit: Here's the relevant part from my state's constitution if you care:

All persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.

I think that's actually a fairly good representation of the freedom of religion, if we ignore the poor atheists/non-monotheists for a minute. All I'm asking is that conservatives start practicing what they claim to believe.

[Michael in ABQ]

I've found over time that most of my friends from high school and college as well as most of my immediate and extended family are way to the left of me politically. I've considered myself libertarian most of my life but I definitely don't agree with big L libertarians on a lot of issues. A big part of that is the influence of my wife. It took close to a decade, but she finally brought me back to the Catholic faith I had nominally been raised in - even though I considered myself an atheist for many years. That was a case where we had very different beliefs, hers being much more conservative, but we still loved each other. I changed my mind from callously thinking that abortion is a great way to get rid of all the worthless people in the world to recognizing that it is inherently wrong and an evil act. That's probably not a topic I'm going to discuss with that random cousin on Facebook who posts nothing but left-wing political talking points. Although I have been able to have some of those discussions with old friends and family because they can't easily dismiss me as some random person on the internet. But we're not going to have the same friendship we did 15-20 years ago. 

The person I would still consider my best friend, even though we've only seen each other in person maybe 2-3 times in the last decade, has very different political beliefs from me. But we can still talk about plenty of other things without arguing about our political beliefs. We respect each others opinions and don't waste our infrequent conversations on trying to prove the other person wrong of convince them that our beliefs are better. He's the socially conscious urban liberal and I've become the conservative religious family man. But, we can still laugh at how the rent for his 1-bedroom apartment is three times the rent for my 5-bedroom house or how he can't imagine having six young kids.

So I think it all depends on the people involved.

I think this is accidentally a very good example of why it's sometimes hard for liberals to be friends with conservatives.

I have no problem with you believing that abortion is a sin. None at all. I don't agree, but that's fully within your right to believe, and to order your life around that belief. As you correctly note, that's a religious belief (not a scientific fact), and you have your freedom of religion written into the foundation of the constitution.

The problem comes when conservatives support banning abortion for other people who need them. That is them, taking their religious belief, and trying to force everyone else to abide by them. That is them taking away other people's freedom of religion. See also gay marriage, or any host of other social issues.

Would you still be friends with your liberal buddy if he was trying to get the government to force you to abort your 6th child? Probably not. That would be the opposite of abortion bans though.

It seems to me that generally "liberals" take the side of liberty, and "conservatives" take the side of illiberal "you have to do what I say and you don't have any rights only my rights matter". The one obvious exception is gun rights, where sure, conservatives are definitely more on the side of liberty.

I have no problem being friends with people that disagree with me as long as we agree on the core tenet of liberty, and their actions (including who they vote for) reflects that. And no I'm not some "taxation is theft" libertarian nut either. But if someone is actively trying to remove the constitutional freedoms from people not like them, that's something I would struggle to look past.

First I would argue that nobody "needs" an abortion anymore than somebody needs to kill their own children.

Second, the Constitution calls for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You can't really have any of that if your life is snuffed out before you're born. 

I consider life to begin at conception, sperm and egg uniting and become a unique new human being with a distinctive genetic code. That's not a religious belief, just basic biology. That single unique cell is a human being just as much as a fetus at 3 months of gestation or a at 9 months of gestation, or one second after birth. They're simply different stages of growth and development.

[PoutineLover]

I am definitely on the left and my line is drawn where someone's beliefs start to affect other people's rights. You can believe whatever you want in the privacy of your own home and your own body, but that right stops where it starts to affect other people. For abortion, if you don't want one, don't get one. Same with gay marriage. But don't tell me I can't, or that no one can just because you don't think it's right. And it's not because I don't believe a fetus is alive, it's because a woman is a fully autonomous human being who cannot be forced to carry a not-yet-independent, potential human being that cannot survive without her consent and life support.
With other political beliefs, it's my right to choose not to associate with or like people who are racist or homophobic or any other "political" belief that dehumanizes others. I'm happy to discuss real political beliefs like taxation, social services, immigration, or health care, but when it comes to the rights of all human beings to live in peace and enjoy full access to their rights in society, that's non-negotiable and I can't be friends with someone who doesn't believe in equality for all human beings.

But there are plenty of situations where this isn’t cut and dried. For instance, the trans bathroom debate. How do you square up a trans persons right to use facilities they are comfortable with a non-trans persons right to not be confronted by a person with the opposite equipment in a locker room?  Or the sports question?  Or the gay wedding cake debate? 

These are highly nuanced positions and situations, but the left loves to claim if you don’t agree with their position fully you are homophobic/transaphobic and don’t believe in equality.

Those issues to me feel like cherry-picked gotcha questions to bait people into having ridiculous debates about almost nothing. I can guarantee you that the vast majority of the time you would have no idea if the person in the bathroom next to you is anything but the gender they present as, and if you tried to find out the "truth", you'd be the one acting inappropriately. We can all agree that it's illegal to molest people or indecently expose yourself to them in the bathroom or anywhere, so let's use those laws if needed instead of inventing fake outrage.
Sports might be a little more complicated, but there's a difference between saying people are equal, now let's make sure the rules apply fairly, vs some people don't deserve to compete because of who they are.
If there are legitimate questions of discrimination, like can someone be denied service on the basis of their sexual orientation or race, or lose their job for it, then you either believe in gay/trans/minority rights or you don't.
If you don't believe that everyone is equal and deserves equal rights, I don't want to be friends with you, but I can't force you to change your beliefs. If you want to have a good faith discussion on where the line is drawn on an fringe case, or how far we should go to correct existing discrimination, cool, but we have to come at it from the perspective that we are all people and we all deserve to live our lives free of discrimination. That's what I mean when I said "I can't be friends with someone who doesn't believe in equality for all human beings"

[PoutineLover]

First I would argue that nobody "needs" an abortion anymore than somebody needs to kill their own children.

Second, the Constitution calls for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You can't really have any of that if your life is snuffed out before you're born. 

I consider life to begin at conception, sperm and egg uniting and become a unique new human being with a distinctive genetic code. That's not a religious belief, just basic biology. That single unique cell is a human being just as much as a fetus at 3 months of gestation or a at 9 months of gestation, or one second after birth. They're simply different stages of growth and development.

Sometimes abortions are needed, to protect the life of the mother, or of a twin, or for the mental health of a mother, or for any other valid reason as determined by the women carrying the fetus or her medical doctor. It's not for you to decide. Babies can be given up for adoption. Fetuses can't.
The constitution only applies once you are a "person" and you need to be born to get your birth certificate/citizenship. Moot point.
(Edit: forgot to mention the priority of the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" of the person carrying said fetus, which would be infringed upon if she were forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term)
You believe that, good for you. Nobody is making you abort one of your babies. All we are saying is that you can't dictate what happens to someone else's body. Get back to me when you are signed up for mandatory organ donation even while alive to save somebody who really needs one of your kidneys or eyes or even heart. Don't want to sign up? Didn't think so.

[sherr]

I've found over time that most of my friends from high school and college as well as most of my immediate and extended family are way to the left of me politically. I've considered myself libertarian most of my life but I definitely don't agree with big L libertarians on a lot of issues. A big part of that is the influence of my wife. It took close to a decade, but she finally brought me back to the Catholic faith I had nominally been raised in - even though I considered myself an atheist for many years. That was a case where we had very different beliefs, hers being much more conservative, but we still loved each other. I changed my mind from callously thinking that abortion is a great way to get rid of all the worthless people in the world to recognizing that it is inherently wrong and an evil act. That's probably not a topic I'm going to discuss with that random cousin on Facebook who posts nothing but left-wing political talking points. Although I have been able to have some of those discussions with old friends and family because they can't easily dismiss me as some random person on the internet. But we're not going to have the same friendship we did 15-20 years ago. 

The person I would still consider my best friend, even though we've only seen each other in person maybe 2-3 times in the last decade, has very different political beliefs from me. But we can still talk about plenty of other things without arguing about our political beliefs. We respect each others opinions and don't waste our infrequent conversations on trying to prove the other person wrong of convince them that our beliefs are better. He's the socially conscious urban liberal and I've become the conservative religious family man. But, we can still laugh at how the rent for his 1-bedroom apartment is three times the rent for my 5-bedroom house or how he can't imagine having six young kids.

So I think it all depends on the people involved.

I think this is accidentally a very good example of why it's sometimes hard for liberals to be friends with conservatives.

I have no problem with you believing that abortion is a sin. None at all. I don't agree, but that's fully within your right to believe, and to order your life around that belief. As you correctly note, that's a religious belief (not a scientific fact), and you have your freedom of religion written into the foundation of the constitution.

The problem comes when conservatives support banning abortion for other people who need them. That is them, taking their religious belief, and trying to force everyone else to abide by them. That is them taking away other people's freedom of religion. See also gay marriage, or any host of other social issues.

Would you still be friends with your liberal buddy if he was trying to get the government to force you to abort your 6th child? Probably not. That would be the opposite of abortion bans though.

It seems to me that generally "liberals" take the side of liberty, and "conservatives" take the side of illiberal "you have to do what I say and you don't have any rights only my rights matter". The one obvious exception is gun rights, where sure, conservatives are definitely more on the side of liberty.

I have no problem being friends with people that disagree with me as long as we agree on the core tenet of liberty, and their actions (including who they vote for) reflects that. And no I'm not some "taxation is theft" libertarian nut either. But if someone is actively trying to remove the constitutional freedoms from people not like them, that's something I would struggle to look past.

First I would argue that nobody "needs" an abortion anymore than somebody needs to kill their own children.

Second, the Constitution calls for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You can't really have any of that if your life is snuffed out before you're born. 

I consider life to begin at conception, sperm and egg uniting and become a unique new human being with a distinctive genetic code. That's not a religious belief, just basic biology. That single unique cell is a human being just as much as a fetus at 3 months of gestation or a at 9 months of gestation, or one second after birth. They're simply different stages of growth and development.

These are not universally accepted truths, but are actually religious / philosophical beliefs. You even said so yourself. "I used to be pro-choice, but then my wife brought me back into the Catholic fold and I changed my mind".

Beyond that I have no problem with you believing that if you want. I personally think it's logically inconsistent. Especially given how pro-lifers use "conception" to mean "fertilization" instead of "implantation" which happens like a week later and is the medical definition of when pregnancy begins, which makes a difference for legislation. By that definition trying to have kids is one of the most immoral things a regular person is ever going to do, given that 40-60% of fertilized eggs do not implant.

But that's fine, you are free to believe that. Others are free to believe differently than you.

[Chris22]

I am definitely on the left and my line is drawn where someone's beliefs start to affect other people's rights. You can believe whatever you want in the privacy of your own home and your own body, but that right stops where it starts to affect other people. For abortion, if you don't want one, don't get one. Same with gay marriage. But don't tell me I can't, or that no one can just because you don't think it's right. And it's not because I don't believe a fetus is alive, it's because a woman is a fully autonomous human being who cannot be forced to carry a not-yet-independent, potential human being that cannot survive without her consent and life support.
With other political beliefs, it's my right to choose not to associate with or like people who are racist or homophobic or any other "political" belief that dehumanizes others. I'm happy to discuss real political beliefs like taxation, social services, immigration, or health care, but when it comes to the rights of all human beings to live in peace and enjoy full access to their rights in society, that's non-negotiable and I can't be friends with someone who doesn't believe in equality for all human beings.

But there are plenty of situations where this isn’t cut and dried. For instance, the trans bathroom debate. How do you square up a trans persons right to use facilities they are comfortable with a non-trans persons right to not be confronted by a person with the opposite equipment in a locker room?  Or the sports question?  Or the gay wedding cake debate? 

These are highly nuanced positions and situations, but the left loves to claim if you don’t agree with their position fully you are homophobic/transaphobic and don’t believe in equality.

Those issues to me feel like cherry-picked gotcha questions to bait people into having ridiculous debates about almost nothing. I can guarantee you that the vast majority of the time you would have no idea if the person in the bathroom next to you is anything but the gender they present as, and if you tried to find out the "truth", you'd be the one acting inappropriately. We can all agree that it's illegal to molest people or indecently expose yourself to them in the bathroom or anywhere, so let's use those laws if needed instead of inventing fake outrage.
Sports might be a little more complicated, but there's a difference between saying people are equal, now let's make sure the rules apply fairly, vs some people don't deserve to compete because of who they are.
If there are legitimate questions of discrimination, like can someone be denied service on the basis of their sexual orientation or race, or lose their job for it, then you either believe in gay/trans/minority rights or you don't.
If you don't believe that everyone is equal and deserves equal rights, I don't want to be friends with you, but I can't force you to change your beliefs. If you want to have a good faith discussion on where the line is drawn on an fringe case, or how far we should go to correct existing discrimination, cool, but we have to come at it from the perspective that we are all people and we all deserve to live our lives free of discrimination. That's what I mean when I said "I can't be friends with someone who doesn't believe in equality for all human beings"

The locker room thing is very real. This is the school district in the town next to mine. The high school is the one my wife attended. Bathrooms are more cut and dried because agree, there’s a certain amount of privacy in bathrooms. But locker rooms, especially in high school where the expectation is you will change for gym, is very different. And people have absolutely been called bigots for having a problem with this.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-palatine-district-211-votes-transgender-lockerroom-20191115-25upotav5jckzg3iwwwrcrkr2y-story.html

The cake thing may be cherry picked but it was national news for quite a while.

[GuitarStv]

I am definitely on the left and my line is drawn where someone's beliefs start to affect other people's rights. You can believe whatever you want in the privacy of your own home and your own body, but that right stops where it starts to affect other people. For abortion, if you don't want one, don't get one. Same with gay marriage. But don't tell me I can't, or that no one can just because you don't think it's right. And it's not because I don't believe a fetus is alive, it's because a woman is a fully autonomous human being who cannot be forced to carry a not-yet-independent, potential human being that cannot survive without her consent and life support.
With other political beliefs, it's my right to choose not to associate with or like people who are racist or homophobic or any other "political" belief that dehumanizes others. I'm happy to discuss real political beliefs like taxation, social services, immigration, or health care, but when it comes to the rights of all human beings to live in peace and enjoy full access to their rights in society, that's non-negotiable and I can't be friends with someone who doesn't believe in equality for all human beings.

But there are plenty of situations where this isn’t cut and dried. For instance, the trans bathroom debate. How do you square up a trans persons right to use facilities they are comfortable with a non-trans persons right to not be confronted by a person with the opposite equipment in a locker room?  Or the sports question?  Or the gay wedding cake debate? 

These are highly nuanced positions and situations, but the left loves to claim if you don’t agree with their position fully you are homophobic/transaphobic and don’t believe in equality.

Those issues to me feel like cherry-picked gotcha questions to bait people into having ridiculous debates about almost nothing. I can guarantee you that the vast majority of the time you would have no idea if the person in the bathroom next to you is anything but the gender they present as, and if you tried to find out the "truth", you'd be the one acting inappropriately. We can all agree that it's illegal to molest people or indecently expose yourself to them in the bathroom or anywhere, so let's use those laws if needed instead of inventing fake outrage.
Sports might be a little more complicated, but there's a difference between saying people are equal, now let's make sure the rules apply fairly, vs some people don't deserve to compete because of who they are.
If there are legitimate questions of discrimination, like can someone be denied service on the basis of their sexual orientation or race, or lose their job for it, then you either believe in gay/trans/minority rights or you don't.
If you don't believe that everyone is equal and deserves equal rights, I don't want to be friends with you, but I can't force you to change your beliefs. If you want to have a good faith discussion on where the line is drawn on an fringe case, or how far we should go to correct existing discrimination, cool, but we have to come at it from the perspective that we are all people and we all deserve to live our lives free of discrimination. That's what I mean when I said "I can't be friends with someone who doesn't believe in equality for all human beings"

The locker room thing is very real. This is the school district in the town next to mine. The high school is the one my wife attended. Bathrooms are more cut and dried because agree, there’s a certain amount of privacy in bathrooms. But locker rooms, especially in high school where the expectation is you will change for gym, is very different. And people have absolutely been called bigots for having a problem with this.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-palatine-district-211-votes-transgender-lockerroom-20191115-25upotav5jckzg3iwwwrcrkr2y-story.html

The cake thing may be cherry picked but it was national news for quite a while.

But what exactly is the problem with transgender people changing in a locker room though?  I read the article you linked and didn't see any issue identified.

The argument always appears to hinge on the assumption that trans people will assault/attack others in a locker room because *unspecified*.  Is there some research I'm unaware of that says a trans person is more likely to assault someone in a locker room than a straight person that is causing this uproar?

[sherr]

The locker room thing is very real. This is the school district in the town next to mine. The high school is the one my wife attended. Bathrooms are more cut and dried because agree, there’s a certain amount of privacy in bathrooms. But locker rooms, especially in high school where the expectation is you will change for gym, is very different. And people have absolutely been called bigots for having a problem with this.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-palatine-district-211-votes-transgender-lockerroom-20191115-25upotav5jckzg3iwwwrcrkr2y-story.html

The cake thing may be cherry picked but it was national news for quite a while.

But what exactly is the problem with transgender people changing in a locker room though?  I read the article you linked and didn't see any issue identified.

The argument always appears to hinge on the assumption that trans people will assault/attack others in a locker room because *unspecified*.  Is there some research I'm unaware of that says a trans person is more likely to assault someone in a locker room than a straight person that is causing this uproar?

The theory goes, which I am unfortunately very familiar with thanks to NC's "bathroom bill" debacle a few years ago, that non-trans perverts will simply claim to be trans so they can get in the girls locker room. Or simply that having trans-girls in the girls locker room would make cis-girls uncomfortable.

The "perverts" part turns out in practice to be a non-issue every time trans people are allowed to chose their bathrooms. And besides, the legal infrastructure already exists to punish voyeurs / sexual assaulters. It just requires a case-by-case evaluation, which really is as the system should work.

As for the "uncomfortable" part, I mean, I get it. But I also get that NC's "bathroom bill" was 100% motivated by Republicans trying to fabricate a moral panic to drive their base out to vote in 2016 after they had finally thoroughly lost on the gay marriage issue, not by any real problem. And what is the alternative? A bathroom bill that forces you to use the locker room corresponding with the sex on your birth certificate, in a state where you can change the sex on your birth certificate? It was obviously just the conservatives finding a smaller, more vulnerable, more misunderstood, more "icky" minority to hate monger against. A better solution for all involved is to simply fix locker rooms to give people some damn privacy.

[MudPuppy]

How often are kids actually forced to be fully naked in front of each other these days? Even before the new millennium we had changing stalls for both locker rooms in my ye olde backwoods schools.

[Wrenchturner]

On the first point: If most conservatives are okay with "murder" in instances of rape, or risk to the mother, or severe deformity, doesn't that make them kind of hypocrites?

Would it be hypocritical for a liberal to suggest that a nine year old shouldn't be permitted to undergo gender reassignment surgery?  Same same.

If what you mean is that they don't support children going through gender reassignment surgery, there are medical reasons for this. It's not some sort of "belief" issue.

This is what I meant, apologies for the lack of clarity.  And I don't buy that it's simply a medical reason--a child does not have sufficient self-determination to make dramatic possibly irreversible changes like a prepubescent gender transition.  If it were a medical issue, we wouldn't permit adults to do it either.  It's not that a child's life is in danger, rather that their quality of life is in danger if they make a hasty decision.

And as far as athletes that "transition" for the sake of a short-term performance advantage... pretty sure that's just a made-up boogeyman scenario by the right.

This strategy should be avoided--subjectively diminishing the opponent's argument is a way of closing yourself into an echo chamber.  See Hannah Mouncey and the AFL's decision to decline her participation in the 2017 draft.  When gender and chromosomes do not align, it will cause problems.

40-60% of fertilized eggs do not survive through a live birth.

This is a pretty good argument, but it's akin to the trolley problem.  Nature "choosing" for a fetus to die is not the same as a human choosing to do so.  At least I don't equivocate them.

Antifa is not equivalent to being anti-abortion. 75% of Republicans identify as pro-life, and 32% believe abortion should be illegal with zero exceptions. (source) I can't find any numbers on antifa, but nobody would seriously argue that their numbers come close to anti-abortion sentiment on the right.

To be fair, 55% of Republicans believe abortion should be legal under certain circumstances, although you make a good point.  32% opposition is pretty strong.

For those that support more liberal abortions, I haven't heard a specific timeline outlined.  At what age--from conception, can a fetus be terminated?  Three months/Six months/Nine months/Two years?  If you want capitulation from conservatives, you need to draw a line somewhere.  At some point this fetus becomes a sovereign individual with rights, yes?

[MonkeyJenga]

40-60% of fertilized eggs do not survive through a live birth.

This is a pretty good argument, but it's akin to the trolley problem.  Nature "choosing" for a fetus to die is not the same as a human choosing to do so.  At least I don't equivocate them.

You said: "In the normative case, a conceived human will be born as a sovereign individual in nine months.  There are exceptions to this, but they do not compromise the general rule."

I was pointing out that it's not just rare exceptions, it's extremely common and possibly the majority of cases. So anti-abortion advocates are not just going by the normal situation.

[MudPuppy]

I think the most common point in time I’ve heard is from age of viability.

[sherr]

For those that support more liberal abortions, I haven't heard a specific timeline outlined.  At what age--from conception, can a fetus be terminated?  Three months/Six months/Nine months/Two years?  If you want capitulation from conservatives, you need to draw a line somewhere.  At some point this fetus becomes a sovereign individual with rights, yes?

The current US Supreme Court Roe V Wade compromise is actually pretty good: viability of the fetus. With exceptions for rape / incest / health of the mother. If you make that the bright dividing line then you still are giving the woman body autonomy / full personhood, while still recognizing that fetal development is a spectrum and that fetal life has value.

As technology improves and we are able to implement "artificial wombs" or similar then "viability of the fetus" will inch earlier and earlier. But it is and probably always will be the best dividing line that balances the (definite, concrete, factual) rights of the mother with the (possible?) life of the fetus.

[Wrenchturner]

You said: "In the normative case, a conceived human will be born as a sovereign individual in nine months.  There are exceptions to this, but they do not compromise the general rule."

I was pointing out that it's not just rare exceptions, it's extremely common and possibly the majority of cases. So anti-abortion advocates are not just going by the normal situation.

Point taken, however, does this reduce the moral hazard of obtaining an abortion?  Does the act of sex not impose culpability on the participants?  I'm having a hard time understanding how the possible failure of a fetus absolves someone of agency if they want to get an abortion.

The current US Supreme Court Roe V Wade compromise is actually pretty good: viability of the fetus. With exceptions for rape / incest / health of the mother. If you make that the bright dividing line then you still are giving the woman body autonomy / full personhood, while still recognizing that fetal development is a spectrum and that fetal life has value.

As technology improves and we are able to implement "artificial wombs" or similar then "viability of the fetus" will inch earlier and earlier. But it is and probably always will be the best dividing line that balances the (definite, concrete, factual) rights of the mother with the (possible?) life of the fetus.

Seems reasonable to me. 

[OtherJen]

For those that support more liberal abortions, I haven't heard a specific timeline outlined.  At what age--from conception, can a fetus be terminated?  Three months/Six months/Nine months/Two years?  If you want capitulation from conservatives, you need to draw a line somewhere.  At some point this fetus becomes a sovereign individual with rights, yes?

The current US Supreme Court Roe V Wade compromise is actually pretty good: viability of the fetus. With exceptions for rape / incest / health of the mother. If you make that the bright dividing line then you still are giving the woman body autonomy / full personhood, while still recognizing that fetal development is a spectrum and that fetal life has value.

As technology improves and we are able to implement "artificial wombs" or similar then "viability of the fetus" will inch earlier and earlier. But it is and probably always will be the best dividing line that balances the (definite, concrete, factual) rights of the mother with the (possible?) life of the fetus.

This has always made the most sense to me. I am also hugely in favor of expanded access to affordable, safe birth control and science-based sex ed because both can help reduce the demand for abortion. I further favor national healthcare, an expanded social safety net, and worker protections to support women who decide not to abort.

Making abortion illegal will only drive it back underground, where it can't be regulated, and could cost women their lives and health. It won't change the culture and society. However, if we give both women and men proper education and actual viable options for preventing pregnancy and supporting their children, we could reduce the number of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions by default.

[MonkeyJenga]

You said: "In the normative case, a conceived human will be born as a sovereign individual in nine months.  There are exceptions to this, but they do not compromise the general rule."

I was pointing out that it's not just rare exceptions, it's extremely common and possibly the majority of cases. So anti-abortion advocates are not just going by the normal situation.

Point taken, however, does this reduce the moral hazard of obtaining an abortion?  Does the act of sex not impose culpability on the participants?  I'm having a hard time understanding how the possible failure of a fetus absolves someone of agency if they want to get an abortion.

Not sure where I talked about moral hazard. You said there is an algorithm - liberals go to the variances, conservatives go to the means, and that fertilization > baby is the norm. I was narrowly focusing on that assertion, not arguing anything else about abortion. That example went against your assertion.

I have thoughts on moral hazard and culpability as it pertains to pushing abstinence-only sex ed and restricting access to birth control, but this thread is already off-topic enough.

[John Galt incarnate!]

Second, the Constitution calls for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You can't really have any of that if your life is snuffed out before you're born. 

This phrase is not written in the Constitution.

It is part of the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence.

I think of the phrase   as a "destination"  arrived at by  following   the directions of  a  "road map"  known as the Constitution.

[Imma]

For those that support more liberal abortions, I haven't heard a specific timeline outlined.  At what age--from conception, can a fetus be terminated?  Three months/Six months/Nine months/Two years?  If you want capitulation from conservatives, you need to draw a line somewhere.  At some point this fetus becomes a sovereign individual with rights, yes?

The current US Supreme Court Roe V Wade compromise is actually pretty good: viability of the fetus. With exceptions for rape / incest / health of the mother. If you make that the bright dividing line then you still are giving the woman body autonomy / full personhood, while still recognizing that fetal development is a spectrum and that fetal life has value.

As technology improves and we are able to implement "artificial wombs" or similar then "viability of the fetus" will inch earlier and earlier. But it is and probably always will be the best dividing line that balances the (definite, concrete, factual) rights of the mother with the (possible?) life of the fetus.

This has always made the most sense to me. I am also hugely in favor of expanded access to affordable, safe birth control and science-based sex ed because both can help reduce the demand for abortion. I further favor national healthcare, an expanded social safety net, and worker protections to support women who decide not to abort.

Making abortion illegal will only drive it back underground, where it can't be regulated, and could cost women their lives and health. It won't change the culture and society. However, if we give both women and men proper education and actual viable options for preventing pregnancy and supporting their children, we could reduce the number of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions by default.

I was going to say, any idea why abortion is only a very minor issue in my country (the Netherlands)? And adoptions are very rare too.

It's because unwanted pregnancies don't happen a lot. Access to sex ed and reliable forms of birth control is not an issue. And it's certainly not true that this somehow invites teens to be sexually active at a younger age or be more promiscuous either, I think the average age teens lose their virginity is like 18 now. When they do it's usually with a long-term partner, in a safe environment and protection is discussed beforehand.

That doesn't mean unwanted pregnancies don't happen at all but the rates are so low that the average person is hardly aware of it. Actually, the group with the highest teen pregancy rate are probably the conservative churches where any kind of dialogue about pre-marital sex is impossible. Of course they don't have abortions, they just get married young. I think the age category with the highest abortion rate is actually women over the age of 35 who already have families and are so busy they forget to take the pill or who think they're no longer able to conceive. And then find themselves expecting another child and know they can't cope with another one. I think better support for parents could prevent a lot of these abortions as well.

[Kris]

For those that support more liberal abortions, I haven't heard a specific timeline outlined.  At what age--from conception, can a fetus be terminated?  Three months/Six months/Nine months/Two years?  If you want capitulation from conservatives, you need to draw a line somewhere.  At some point this fetus becomes a sovereign individual with rights, yes?

The current US Supreme Court Roe V Wade compromise is actually pretty good: viability of the fetus. With exceptions for rape / incest / health of the mother. If you make that the bright dividing line then you still are giving the woman body autonomy / full personhood, while still recognizing that fetal development is a spectrum and that fetal life has value.

As technology improves and we are able to implement "artificial wombs" or similar then "viability of the fetus" will inch earlier and earlier. But it is and probably always will be the best dividing line that balances the (definite, concrete, factual) rights of the mother with the (possible?) life of the fetus.

This has always made the most sense to me. I am also hugely in favor of expanded access to affordable, safe birth control and science-based sex ed because both can help reduce the demand for abortion. I further favor national healthcare, an expanded social safety net, and worker protections to support women who decide not to abort.

Making abortion illegal will only drive it back underground, where it can't be regulated, and could cost women their lives and health. It won't change the culture and society. However, if we give both women and men proper education and actual viable options for preventing pregnancy and supporting their children, we could reduce the number of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions by default.

I was going to say, any idea why abortion is only a very minor issue in my country (the Netherlands)? And adoptions are very rare too.

It's because unwanted pregnancies don't happen a lot. Access to sex ed and reliable forms of birth control is not an issue. And it's certainly not true that this somehow invites teens to be sexually active at a younger age or be more promiscuous either, I think the average age teens lose their virginity is like 18 now. When they do it's usually with a long-term partner, in a safe environment and protection is discussed beforehand.

That doesn't mean unwanted pregnancies don't happen at all but the rates are so low that the average person is hardly aware of it. Actually, the group with the highest teen pregancy rate are probably the conservative churches where any kind of dialogue about pre-marital sex is impossible. Of course they don't have abortions, they just get married young. I think the age category with the highest abortion rate is actually women over the age of 35 who already have families and are so busy they forget to take the pill or who think they're no longer able to conceive. And then find themselves expecting another child and know they can't cope with another one. I think better support for parents could prevent a lot of these abortions as well.

In the US, we prefer to pretend that the only people having sex out of wedlock are immoral people, act as though birth control and sex ed is freely and equally available to everyone, and then punish the people who fall through the cracks.

[jeninco]

<snip>


This has always made the most sense to me. I am also hugely in favor of expanded access to affordable, safe birth control and science-based sex ed because both can help reduce the demand for abortion. I further favor national healthcare, an expanded social safety net, and worker protections to support women who decide not to abort.

Making abortion illegal will only drive it back underground, where it can't be regulated, and could cost women their lives and health. It won't change the culture and society. However, if we give both women and men proper education and actual viable options for preventing pregnancy and supporting their children, we could reduce the number of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions by default.

I was going to say, any idea why abortion is only a very minor issue in my country (the Netherlands)? And adoptions are very rare too.

It's because unwanted pregnancies don't happen a lot. Access to sex ed and reliable forms of birth control is not an issue. And it's certainly not true that this somehow invites teens to be sexually active at a younger age or be more promiscuous either, I think the average age teens lose their virginity is like 18 now. When they do it's usually with a long-term partner, in a safe environment and protection is discussed beforehand.

That doesn't mean unwanted pregnancies don't happen at all but the rates are so low that the average person is hardly aware of it. Actually, the group with the highest teen pregancy rate are probably the conservative churches where any kind of dialogue about pre-marital sex is impossible. Of course they don't have abortions, they just get married young. I think the age category with the highest abortion rate is actually women over the age of 35 who already have families and are so busy they forget to take the pill or who think they're no longer able to conceive. And then find themselves expecting another child and know they can't cope with another one. I think better support for parents could prevent a lot of these abortions as well.

In the US, we prefer to pretend that the only people having sex out of wedlock are immoral people, act as though birth control and sex ed is freely and equally available to everyone, and then punish the people who fall through the cracks.

And they're more like chasms then cracks, in a lot of places. We don't teach sex ed in lots of places (and it's laughably easy for your parents to get you out of the class even in places where it is taught) and lots of places birth control is EXPENSIVE by the standards of teenaged salaries.

[Bloop Bloop]

The abortion debate gets very heated because a lot of people are trying to put their foot in both camps. They want to find a position that protects the mother as well as the baby. Of course, you can't really do that. If you are pro-abortion (like me), then you are pro killing babies. And that's perfectly fine, at least in some cases. If you are anti-abortion, you are anti- the rights of the mother. And that is justifiable at least in some cases too. There is often no easy choice. As a pro-abortion person, it is fairly easy for me to justify killing an early term foetus without sentience, less easy (but doable in some cases) to justify killing a near fully formed baby. But no one on either side wants to grapple with the messiness.

And I'm sad to see so many people in this thread just taking one side of the debate and not doing what I suggested which is to put the opposing argument, in good faith, at its absolute highest before you try to get to your own point.

It's so easy to argue for your own side if you fail to take the other person's point, correct any perceived deficiencies and see the good faith reasons for the belief.

It's something I hate about MMM's blog posts too. The reason that someone drives a clown car might be that he or she has a health condition that prevents extended walking/biking, or maybe he or she has suffered through trauma and needs the security of an SUV?

Any ideology or political stance that "defines" you and excludes others is almost always going to become corrosive and morally imbalanced.

[sui generis]

I consider life to begin at conception, sperm and egg uniting and become a unique new human being with a distinctive genetic code. That's not a religious belief, just basic biology. That single unique cell is a human being just as much as a fetus at 3 months of gestation or a at 9 months of gestation, or one second after birth. They're simply different stages of growth and development.

So is it ok to kill an identical twin?  They don't have a unique genetic code, so does that mean they aren't a "life"?  Any definition people come up with always fails to include or over-includes something.

To @Bloop Bloop's point, abortion is one issue I have consistently been the most passionate about over my lifetime.  I literally just got off my shift volunteering for an abortion fund, one of the things I have devoted my time to in FIRE.  And it's work that I find valuable and meaningful.  And yet, I've certainly come to understand a bit more about how anti-abortionists feel about it.  I know how I feel about murder. 

And if I saw fetuses as persons or (more pertinently) if I saw them as persons more than I see the women whose uteri they occupy as persons, I would be against abortion, too.  Ultimately, it's a battle of two inalienable rights.  A right to bodily autonomy is never abridged in our society unless that person has committed a crime (or, temporarily, if the person is suspected of committing a crime), and even then the punishment may be much less than what some women have suffered carrying a fetus to term (whether actual death, as happens if the woman has the misfortune to seek help at a Catholic hospital, or just the high and ever-increasing risk, in America, of pregnancy and delivery).  And remember, the woman has not committed a crime.  So what right do we have to abridge her bodily autonomy?

Of course, the right to life is also an inalienable right, for which there are a *number* of exceptions.  Whoever decided that the latter is a more important right than the former...well, let's just say I've never heard it argued explicitly.  It's just assumed.  But people don't acknowledge that the right to bodily autonomy is at least as sacrosanct as to life.  And so when two inalienable rights conflict, yes it can be hard.  But again, this assumes a fetus has the same or greater moral agency as the woman in whose uterus it resides and depends on for life.  I do not ascribe even the same moral agency to a fetus, much less a small collection of cells, as a woman and certainly would not ascribe the greater moral agency to it such that abortion is the greater wrong than violating the inalienable right to bodily autonomy. 

[Bloop Bloop]

I wouldn't ascribe the same moral agency to a foetus either. That's why I'm pro-abortion (I hate the term pro-choice and pro-life. You're either pro-killing foetuses/babies or you're anti-it. But I understand why in today's disingenuous and politically charged climate, euphemisms have to be employed on both sides.)

I think if a fully fledged adult human has a moral weight of 1.0, a first trimester foetus has about a 0.1, a third trimester maybe 0.6 and an infant maybe 0.8? And a zygote 0.01. Not trying to be exact here, but you get the picture.

But a lot of people aren't comfortable dealing in those shades of grey, particularly when it's impossible to properly quantify those decimal points. And also because a lot of people have a rule against making non-binary value judgments. For example they will pose the tough questions, do sentient animals have moral agency? (My view - yes, but normally less than a human.) Do severely disabled people have moral agency? (My view - yes, but depending on their level of consciousness, less than a fully conscious human being.) Etc etc. Some people would rather not have to deal with these questions or they see the assignment of non-binary values to "life" to be repulsive because it tries to judge things like level of sentience/understanding that they think we shouldn't judge.

So, it can be hard to bridge the chasm. Especially when often advocates on either side are not entirely intellectually honest about their positions.

[sherr]

I wouldn't ascribe the same moral agency to a foetus either. That's why I'm pro-abortion (I hate the term pro-choice and pro-life. You're either pro-killing foetuses/babies or you're anti-it. But I understand why in today's disingenuous and politically charged climate, euphemisms have to be employed on both sides.)

You are distasteful and you're wrong. There is very little chance that I would ever personally choose an abortion. But I'm not arrogant enough to think that I can make that decision for everyone else in every other situation. I am pro-choice.

[LaineyAZ]

To bring this back to another aspect, I've seen quite a lot of information that instead of a left/right divide, it's really a rural/urban divide.

I've been browsing some survivalist/prepper sites lately, and oh boy, a number of the rural folks have very deeply held beliefs about the federal government basically being the enemy, and how the government is planning on taking their property or their water when the drought hits, and that the United Nations is trying to overpower our sovereign government, etc.   Of course these comments would be more prevalent on the prepper sites, but the underlying message - that the government is the enemy - seems to be widely held.  Therefore any political party who wants to expand government programs in any way is a "communist" and must be stopped.

I don't know how anyone outside of this mindset could even begin to change this way of thinking.

[Bloop Bloop]

I wouldn't ascribe the same moral agency to a foetus either. That's why I'm pro-abortion (I hate the term pro-choice and pro-life. You're either pro-killing foetuses/babies or you're anti-it. But I understand why in today's disingenuous and politically charged climate, euphemisms have to be employed on both sides.)

You are distasteful and you're wrong. There is very little chance that I would ever personally choose an abortion. But I'm not arrogant enough to think that I can make that decision for everyone else in every other situation. I am pro-choice.

If you're pro-choice then you're pro-killing foetuses. You might not be pro-killing-a-particular-foetus (your own, or your partner's, or the foetus of anyone who doesn't want to kill it) but obviously I am not pro-killing all babies either. I never said that I could make the decision for anyone else, only that I would generally leave the decision open depending on various ethical factors. 

Your position as I understand it is that you believe abortion in some cases is justified (but you would be unlikely to ever choose it for yourself). I could easily agree with that position, except that you and I seem to use a different dividing line when it comes to sentience, and I don't believe there's ever a bright-line that ought to be adopted separating yes from no.

[Dancin'Dog]

Let's flip the political coin.  I have always found it interesting that Liberals are Pro Choice while Conservatives are Pro Gun.  Let's save the unborn children, but don't worry about mass shootings in our schools.  We'd have to be willing to give up our guns to save them, and that's just too high a price.  But I'm fine forcing "other" people to have children against their will, since it doesn't involve me.

[ministashy]

On abortion--I am firmly pro-choice.  And anyone who believes that a pre-viable/non-viable fetus is a 'person' and therefore worthy of life, regardless of the wishes or the harm done to the fully autonomous and living mother, should also be advocating for mandatory blood and organ donations across the board.  After all, how dare someone have an extra kidney, or blood, or bone marrow, when it could be used to keep someone else alive?  Further, they should believe in mandatory donation both while alive and after death, irregardless of that person's consent or religious beliefs.  If they don't, then I am very comfortable in calling that person a hypocrite.

In regards to the original thread--similarly, my bar for 'friends' is fairly high.  I will not trust someone as a true friend if they do not believe I deserve bodily autonomy, whether women and POC deserve to be treated equally, or that LGBTQA folks should not be discriminated against, or other policies that actively do real, living people significant harm.  I may keep them as an acquaintance, friendly or otherwise, as long as they're not jerks about it.  Other differences of opinion, political or otherwise, I grant more leeway in--for example, I am perfectly willing to argue with my closest friend about the necessity of bicycle lanes and the right to bike in the road without being harassed by drivers, while he has a much more typical driver-centric view.  Or the size of national parks.  Or whether a soda tax is a good idea or not.  Etcetera, etcetera.

[ctuser1]

I wouldn't ascribe the same moral agency to a foetus either. That's why I'm pro-abortion (I hate the term pro-choice and pro-life. You're either pro-killing foetuses/babies or you're anti-it. But I understand why in today's disingenuous and politically charged climate, euphemisms have to be employed on both sides.)

You are distasteful and you're wrong. There is very little chance that I would ever personally choose an abortion. But I'm not arrogant enough to think that I can make that decision for everyone else in every other situation. I am pro-choice.

If you're pro-choice then you're pro-killing foetuses. You might not be pro-killing-a-particular-foetus (your own, or your partner's, or the foetus of anyone who doesn't want to kill it) but obviously I am not pro-killing all babies either. I never said that I could make the decision for anyone else, only that I would generally leave the decision open depending on various ethical factors. 

Your position as I understand it is that you believe abortion in some cases is justified (but you would be unlikely to ever choose it for yourself). I could easily agree with that position, except that you and I seem to use a different dividing line when it comes to sentience, and I don't believe there's ever a bright-line that ought to be adopted separating yes from no.

Your logic skills are failing you. Pro-choice = you stay out of other people's business.

Her body, her choice!! It's none of your business to poke your nose into any moral/ethical implications *for her to consider and her only*. That is between her and her conscience/god/whatever with no role for you, me or a pussy-grabbing-conservative.

Anything else you imply is putting words in other people's mouth.

[Bloop Bloop]

In which case you are pro each mother having the right - whether or not exercised - to kill her foetus up to some point in time.

In which case I mostly agree with you, except I'd argue that instead of having a line drawn at birth, the burden that the mother needs to prove - to herself, her conscience, God, or society* - grows progressively heavier from the first trimester to post-birth. There is no justification apart from a pragmatic one to draw the line at birth, or particularly at any stage at all. After all it's not like a foetus 5  minutes before birth has a materially different level of sentience from a 5 minute old infant.

*Just because an individual exercises a right over his or her own body doesn't mean that the individual doesn't have to justify it externally. Every right carries with it the obligation of justification.

Also, not sure why so much defensiveness when I label pro-choice "pro-killing foetuses" (or babies, if you subscribe to my view that there's no bright line distinction). That's just what it is. There's nothing wrong with it. It's an ethical dilemma that you have to resolve one way or another. In many cases if you do not kill the foetus you will endanger the mother, violate her autonomy perhaps unnecessarily or cause some other accumulated loss of utility that outweighs the death of the foetus.