Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.

If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.

Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.

Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.

Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.

You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.

Several people have espoused this point, but yours has been the most succinct.

If you would, can you please tell me what the difference is to you between someone being motivated by their religion to pass something into law restricting it, and someone being motivated by their conscious or whatnot to pass a different law restricting something? This is assuming we're not talking about imposing someone's religion in terms of dictating that they come to church on Sunday morning and worship but instead that they are guided by ethics that come from a religious standpoint to see something as immoral whereas others would be guided by their conscious/upbringing/whatever else to see something else is immoral or to disagree about morality. If you would prefer to not answer and/or others would, that's great. I'm just curious as to the line of reasoning.

The “life begins at conception” idea is not supported by science. It is supported by a religion (recent right-leaning Christianity).

Your (general sense) belief in this should not impact my decision. Or my body.

I guess what I'm getting at is, there's a lot of things science doesn't support one way or the other. Pretty much every ethical issue science doesn't really support. It doesn't support that theft is bad or someone doesn't have the right to impose their will on someone else. That's where ethics come in, and aren't all of our ethics guided by something one way or the other? I've always had a hard time seeing the distinction between an ethical point guided by religion and an ethical point guided by, well, not religion.

Not every issue claims to have a scientific basis, though.

Ethics are guided by something, yes. But we have separation of church and state. So no, ethical points almost exclusively guided by one person or group’s religion are not valid.

I'm really not trying to be coming off as argumentative on this, but I just want to make sure I understand. So you're saying that you are against a person being guided by their religion to make ethical decisions because of Constitutional protections. Wouldn't that mean that if there were no Constitutional protection there wouldn't be a problem? I guess what I'm saying is, it still seems like people who say this are saying that religion can't be used to make decisions...because religion can't be used. Then that would simply mean that you are setting religion down as inherently bad or less than non-religion motivations. Am I right about this, or am I giving your take a biased interpretation?

[Sid Hoffman]

The “life begins at conception” idea is not supported by science. It is supported by a religion (recent right-leaning Christianity).

One of the easiest ways to define when life begins is when the cells start dividing on their own. An unfertilized egg doesn't divide on its own and turn into a new life, no matter how much time, no matter the conditions, no matter anything at all. Same for sperm. Never will sperm alone turn into a person. However, fertilize an egg with sperm and it starts dividing, right away starting the chain reaction that is life. That is irrefutable science. No human being but Jesus Christ (or no one ever, if you don't believe in Jesus) comes from an unfertilized egg, and no fertilized egg turns into an elbow, or a liver, or a 3rd arm, or anything like that. They turn into people. That's science.

[EvenSteven]

The “life begins at conception” idea is not supported by science. It is supported by a religion (recent right-leaning Christianity).

One of the easiest ways to define when life begins is when the cells start dividing on their own. An unfertilized egg doesn't divide on its own and turn into a new life, no matter how much time, no matter the conditions, no matter anything at all. Same for sperm. Never will sperm alone turn into a person. However, fertilize an egg with sperm and it starts dividing, right away starting the chain reaction that is life. That is irrefutable science. No human being but Jesus Christ (or no one ever, if you don't believe in Jesus) comes from an unfertilized egg, and no fertilized egg turns into an elbow, or a liver, or a 3rd arm, or anything like that. They turn into people. That's science.

If we could set religion aside for just a minute I think we can all agree, no matter what your religion, that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior, and is the only human/god/ghost that came from an underutilized egg. That’s just science.

[PKFFW]

That's a good point. I would disagree with it because of a few of things.  One is, an issue I wasn't able to articulate until I thought about it, is that the analogy is adding the term tree onto oak. Oak is a good tie-in to human. Tree by definition is added separately, so it truly is as if you are saying adult human or human child - it's an additional adjective. That's the biggest reason, I would say, why that analogy doesn't work, and it doesn't really rely on connotation - it relies on the fact that you're literally treating one word "oak" differently from the other word, "human" because you're adding something in one instance but not in the other.

Ok, I acquiesce to that point.  Oak is equivalent to human and tree is an additional adjective.  So I guess an acorn is the same as an oak.

Those are not my main concern though. Overall, I would agree that yes, the word human definitely does have connotations. My first point is that we don't need to use connotations - it meets the definitions of human and life. There are connotations for a crap ton of things that may or may not apply to the conversation. I can say, I believe (because of what I've mentioned before about the words human life and because of other stuff I've thought of that differentiate this with the severed hand analogy that we can get into if you'd like) that human life in a fairly context-free situation fits unborn.

Second, you call out that there is the context for the word human. I don't disagree with this, but I very glad you brought up your examples, because it's a perfect illustration of the problems of connotation! You say "I would lay any odds you care to name that if you are honest you will admit that the image that comes to mind is that of something that at least resembles a developed body and perhaps with some form of consciousness/awareness/personality.  Maybe two arms, two legs, a head, body, smiling face, etc etc.  That's because the word "human" has connotations." Yes! You're absolutely right. The general human connotation does probably engender an average dude, 2 arms, 2 legs, a head, body, smiling, etc. But that's kind of my whole point. In any other context, connotations like that would be rightfully frowned upon; I mean, right? 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. aren't required to be a human. What about awareness or personality? Are we declaring people with severe mental disabilities as not human because a lack of some of this other "connotation" of being human? The connotation doesn't make the point. In other situations, it may not be as distasteful as labeling of someone as not a human who is disfigured or whatever; it may be simply a connotation of awareness/personality when someone is in a vegetative state. In that point, again, I doubt if push came to shove, people would say that they were not human because of it.

You've said that you feel like I need to take context into account in discussing in good faith. I feel like that is a very poor argument literally because of the very examples you gave. Yes, I am insisting on declaring the unborn human life because the connotations are crap. Best case, they are poorly thought out (thinking of a human in terms of their consciousness when most people would still call a human in a vegetative state as human); worst case it's really a very disturbing and repugnant connotation to take (2 arms, 2 legs, a certain level of consciousness/intellect). As I've mentioned before, these "connotations" and following through with the dehumanizing nature of them have lead to discrimination and loathsome behaviors.

I don't know whether to reply to this or not.

You have intentionally misquoted me by deleting a pertinent part of my post and then tried to call me out and suggest I would deny a person's humanity because they were in a vegetative state, mentally challenged, or disfigured.

For someone who has railed so consistently at ctuser1 for making assumptions about what you mean it's extremely disappointing to see you resort to intentionally misquoting to try to twist my point into something it clearly was not and then blatantly insult me based on your deceit.

I think it's in completely good faith to insist on calling unborn human life because it's very easy to defend calling the unborn that in a contextless environment with base definitions and yes, at least some scientific backing. So it's easy to defend it without context, and with context, well, that context is worthy of being disputed and fought against. There are a ton of things about the unborn that go aginst the connotations of humans that most people have, but those connotations range from: at best a simplistic check box because we don't need to think fully through the word human every time we use it to at worst, inappropriate biases that lead us to look down on others who are different from us, of which I would include the unborn in that category.

Perhaps if you wanted to label a single celled organism "living human DNA" or something like that there could be meaning terms of reference for a discussion.  If you insist a single celled organism is an "unborn human life" and accuse anyone who disagrees as simply trying to distance themselves from reality there isn't any ground for rational discussion as far as I can see.

Couple that with your willingness to resort to intentionally misquoting me in the most obvious and frankly insulting way in order to tilt at a convenient and disgustingly low strawman and I will bow out of what I mistakenly thought was an honest and respectful attempt at dialogue.

[PKFFW]

One of the easiest ways to define when life begins is when the cells start dividing on their own. An unfertilized egg doesn't divide on its own and turn into a new life, no matter how much time, no matter the conditions, no matter anything at all. Same for sperm. Never will sperm alone turn into a person. However, fertilize an egg with sperm and it starts dividing, right away starting the chain reaction that is life. That is irrefutable science. No human being but Jesus Christ (or no one ever, if you don't believe in Jesus) comes from an unfertilized egg, and no fertilized egg turns into an elbow, or a liver, or a 3rd arm, or anything like that. They turn into people. That's science.

Actually conservative estimates would suggest approximately half of fertilised eggs do not turn into people, they turn into dead clumps of cells some days or weeks later.  The number is probably significantly higher.  And note, that's from natural causes, not from abortions.  That's science.

[jehovasfitness23]

republican governors and senators sucking at the teet of big biz and saying let the free market decide, then get mad when the free market speaks... looking at you Mitch and DeSantis

[Davnasty]

The “life begins at conception” idea is not supported by science. It is supported by a religion (recent right-leaning Christianity).

One of the easiest ways to define when life begins is when the cells start dividing on their own. An unfertilized egg doesn't divide on its own and turn into a new life, no matter how much time, no matter the conditions, no matter anything at all. Same for sperm. Never will sperm alone turn into a person. However, fertilize an egg with sperm and it starts dividing, right away starting the chain reaction that is life. That is irrefutable science. No human being but Jesus Christ (or no one ever, if you don't believe in Jesus) comes from an unfertilized egg, and no fertilized egg turns into an elbow, or a liver, or a 3rd arm, or anything like that. They turn into people. That's science.

If we could set religion aside for just a minute I think we can all agree, no matter what your religion, that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior, and is the only human/god/ghost that came from an underutilized egg. That’s just science.

Ya been scienced!

[GuitarStv]

From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.

If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.

Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.

Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.

Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.

You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.

Several people have espoused this point, but yours has been the most succinct.

If you would, can you please tell me what the difference is to you between someone being motivated by their religion to pass something into law restricting it, and someone being motivated by their conscious or whatnot to pass a different law restricting something? This is assuming we're not talking about imposing someone's religion in terms of dictating that they come to church on Sunday morning and worship but instead that they are guided by ethics that come from a religious standpoint to see something as immoral whereas others would be guided by their conscious/upbringing/whatever else to see something else is immoral or to disagree about morality. If you would prefer to not answer and/or others would, that's great. I'm just curious as to the line of reasoning.

The “life begins at conception” idea is not supported by science. It is supported by a religion (recent right-leaning Christianity).

Your (general sense) belief in this should not impact my decision. Or my body.

I guess what I'm getting at is, there's a lot of things science doesn't support one way or the other. Pretty much every ethical issue science doesn't really support. It doesn't support that theft is bad or someone doesn't have the right to impose their will on someone else. That's where ethics come in, and aren't all of our ethics guided by something one way or the other? I've always had a hard time seeing the distinction between an ethical point guided by religion and an ethical point guided by, well, not religion.

Not every issue claims to have a scientific basis, though.

Ethics are guided by something, yes. But we have separation of church and state. So no, ethical points almost exclusively guided by one person or group’s religion are not valid.

This is a weird argument to make Kris.

Ethics are guided by one's philosophy, which is often heavily influenced by religious (or irreligious) beliefs.  It is confusing to tell someone they can't make ethical decisions and judgements based upon their personal understanding of moral behaviour to be.  How else would one make this sort of decision?

While I often find myself viewing religion as a damaging delusion, the separation of church and state does not (and should not) prevent religious people from advocating for things that they believe to be right.  That almost seems to be an attempt at thought control - no different from a religious person telling an atheist that their viewpoint shouldn't count due to lack of faith.  It also seems to stand counter to the second half of Jefferson's comments regarding church and state:

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

[Kris]

From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.

If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.

Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.

Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.

Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.

You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.

Several people have espoused this point, but yours has been the most succinct.

If you would, can you please tell me what the difference is to you between someone being motivated by their religion to pass something into law restricting it, and someone being motivated by their conscious or whatnot to pass a different law restricting something? This is assuming we're not talking about imposing someone's religion in terms of dictating that they come to church on Sunday morning and worship but instead that they are guided by ethics that come from a religious standpoint to see something as immoral whereas others would be guided by their conscious/upbringing/whatever else to see something else is immoral or to disagree about morality. If you would prefer to not answer and/or others would, that's great. I'm just curious as to the line of reasoning.

The “life begins at conception” idea is not supported by science. It is supported by a religion (recent right-leaning Christianity).

Your (general sense) belief in this should not impact my decision. Or my body.

I guess what I'm getting at is, there's a lot of things science doesn't support one way or the other. Pretty much every ethical issue science doesn't really support. It doesn't support that theft is bad or someone doesn't have the right to impose their will on someone else. That's where ethics come in, and aren't all of our ethics guided by something one way or the other? I've always had a hard time seeing the distinction between an ethical point guided by religion and an ethical point guided by, well, not religion.

Not every issue claims to have a scientific basis, though.

Ethics are guided by something, yes. But we have separation of church and state. So no, ethical points almost exclusively guided by one person or group’s religion are not valid.

This is a weird argument to make Kris.

Ethics are guided by one's philosophy, which is often heavily influenced by religious (or irreligious) beliefs.  It is confusing to tell someone they can't make ethical decisions and judgements based upon their personal understanding of moral behaviour to be.  How else would one make this sort of decision?

While I often find myself viewing religion as a damaging delusion, the separation of church and state does not (and should not) prevent religious people from advocating for things that they believe to be right.  That almost seems to be an attempt at thought control - no different from a religious person telling an atheist that their viewpoint shouldn't count due to lack of faith.  It also seems to stand counter to the second half of Jefferson's comments regarding church and state:

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

Not at all. Of course people can make ethical decisions and judgments based on their personal understanding. They can argue that life begins at conception and that therefore abortion is morally wrong all day long. They can argue this in church, from the pulpit, and in their house. The can do it on the street, they can go door to door, and they can publish articles on it. I'm not in any way arguing that there be a law prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.

But what I am arguing is that a lawmaker have the ethical and moral compass to recognize that when their belief comes from a religious perspective -- and when that religious perspective is not shared by the vast majority of people of many other religions, as well as people of no faith -- that attempting to codify that belief into a law is overreach and should not be attempted in the United States of America.

[Kris]

From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.

If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.

Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.

Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.

Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.

You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.

Several people have espoused this point, but yours has been the most succinct.

If you would, can you please tell me what the difference is to you between someone being motivated by their religion to pass something into law restricting it, and someone being motivated by their conscious or whatnot to pass a different law restricting something? This is assuming we're not talking about imposing someone's religion in terms of dictating that they come to church on Sunday morning and worship but instead that they are guided by ethics that come from a religious standpoint to see something as immoral whereas others would be guided by their conscious/upbringing/whatever else to see something else is immoral or to disagree about morality. If you would prefer to not answer and/or others would, that's great. I'm just curious as to the line of reasoning.

I sort of answered this in my response to Stv directly above.

And I would also suggest as an aside that the moral "life begins at conception" standpoint is not only overreach when one attempts to codify that into a law... but that it is not a "biblical view on abortion." It is a viewpoint -- and a recent one -- of a very particular branch of Christianity. Which suggests to me that its use is a political one more than an ethical one, at least by cynical political leaders.

[GuitarStv]

From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.

If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.

Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.

Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.

Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.

You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.

Several people have espoused this point, but yours has been the most succinct.

If you would, can you please tell me what the difference is to you between someone being motivated by their religion to pass something into law restricting it, and someone being motivated by their conscious or whatnot to pass a different law restricting something? This is assuming we're not talking about imposing someone's religion in terms of dictating that they come to church on Sunday morning and worship but instead that they are guided by ethics that come from a religious standpoint to see something as immoral whereas others would be guided by their conscious/upbringing/whatever else to see something else is immoral or to disagree about morality. If you would prefer to not answer and/or others would, that's great. I'm just curious as to the line of reasoning.

The “life begins at conception” idea is not supported by science. It is supported by a religion (recent right-leaning Christianity).

Your (general sense) belief in this should not impact my decision. Or my body.

I guess what I'm getting at is, there's a lot of things science doesn't support one way or the other. Pretty much every ethical issue science doesn't really support. It doesn't support that theft is bad or someone doesn't have the right to impose their will on someone else. That's where ethics come in, and aren't all of our ethics guided by something one way or the other? I've always had a hard time seeing the distinction between an ethical point guided by religion and an ethical point guided by, well, not religion.

Not every issue claims to have a scientific basis, though.

Ethics are guided by something, yes. But we have separation of church and state. So no, ethical points almost exclusively guided by one person or group’s religion are not valid.

This is a weird argument to make Kris.

Ethics are guided by one's philosophy, which is often heavily influenced by religious (or irreligious) beliefs.  It is confusing to tell someone they can't make ethical decisions and judgements based upon their personal understanding of moral behaviour to be.  How else would one make this sort of decision?

While I often find myself viewing religion as a damaging delusion, the separation of church and state does not (and should not) prevent religious people from advocating for things that they believe to be right.  That almost seems to be an attempt at thought control - no different from a religious person telling an atheist that their viewpoint shouldn't count due to lack of faith.  It also seems to stand counter to the second half of Jefferson's comments regarding church and state:

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

Not at all. Of course people can make ethical decisions and judgments based on their personal understanding. They can argue that life begins at conception and that therefore abortion is morally wrong all day long. They can argue this in church, from the pulpit, and in their house. The can do it on the street, they can go door to door, and they can publish articles on it. I'm not in any way arguing that there be a law prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.

But what I am arguing is that a lawmaker have the ethical and moral compass to recognize that when their belief comes from a religious perspective -- and when that religious perspective is not shared by the vast majority of people of many other religions, as well as people of no faith -- that attempting to codify that belief into a law is overreach and should not be attempted in the United States of America.

Getting back to the topic of abortion - 46% of the US population identified as pro-life and 48% as pro-choice (https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx).  It's difficult for me to see this as a 'vast majority' or to see pro-choice advocacy as indication of religious overreach.  Are you getting different numbers somewhere?

As previously mentioned, I think the discussion of when life starts in the abortion debate is really a red herring.  The important question to answer is 'should the rights of a fetus supersede a woman's right to bodily autonomy'.  I haven't heard a logical argument for a woman to be required by law to give her uterus to another human being when she doesn't want to.

[Kris]

From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.

If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.

Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.

Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.

Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.

You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.

Several people have espoused this point, but yours has been the most succinct.

If you would, can you please tell me what the difference is to you between someone being motivated by their religion to pass something into law restricting it, and someone being motivated by their conscious or whatnot to pass a different law restricting something? This is assuming we're not talking about imposing someone's religion in terms of dictating that they come to church on Sunday morning and worship but instead that they are guided by ethics that come from a religious standpoint to see something as immoral whereas others would be guided by their conscious/upbringing/whatever else to see something else is immoral or to disagree about morality. If you would prefer to not answer and/or others would, that's great. I'm just curious as to the line of reasoning.

The “life begins at conception” idea is not supported by science. It is supported by a religion (recent right-leaning Christianity).

Your (general sense) belief in this should not impact my decision. Or my body.

I guess what I'm getting at is, there's a lot of things science doesn't support one way or the other. Pretty much every ethical issue science doesn't really support. It doesn't support that theft is bad or someone doesn't have the right to impose their will on someone else. That's where ethics come in, and aren't all of our ethics guided by something one way or the other? I've always had a hard time seeing the distinction between an ethical point guided by religion and an ethical point guided by, well, not religion.

Not every issue claims to have a scientific basis, though.

Ethics are guided by something, yes. But we have separation of church and state. So no, ethical points almost exclusively guided by one person or group’s religion are not valid.

This is a weird argument to make Kris.

Ethics are guided by one's philosophy, which is often heavily influenced by religious (or irreligious) beliefs.  It is confusing to tell someone they can't make ethical decisions and judgements based upon their personal understanding of moral behaviour to be.  How else would one make this sort of decision?

While I often find myself viewing religion as a damaging delusion, the separation of church and state does not (and should not) prevent religious people from advocating for things that they believe to be right.  That almost seems to be an attempt at thought control - no different from a religious person telling an atheist that their viewpoint shouldn't count due to lack of faith.  It also seems to stand counter to the second half of Jefferson's comments regarding church and state:

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

Not at all. Of course people can make ethical decisions and judgments based on their personal understanding. They can argue that life begins at conception and that therefore abortion is morally wrong all day long. They can argue this in church, from the pulpit, and in their house. The can do it on the street, they can go door to door, and they can publish articles on it. I'm not in any way arguing that there be a law prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.

But what I am arguing is that a lawmaker have the ethical and moral compass to recognize that when their belief comes from a religious perspective -- and when that religious perspective is not shared by the vast majority of people of many other religions, as well as people of no faith -- that attempting to codify that belief into a law is overreach and should not be attempted in the United States of America.

Getting back to the topic of abortion - 46% of the US population identified as pro-life and 48% as pro-choice (https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx).  It's difficult for me to see this as a 'vast majority' or to see pro-choice advocacy as indication of religious overreach.  Are you getting different numbers somewhere?

As previously mentioned, I think the discussion of when life starts in the abortion debate is really a red herring.  The important question to answer is 'should the rights of a fetus supersede a woman's right to bodily autonomy'.  I haven't heard a logical argument for a woman to be required by law to give her uterus to another human being when she doesn't want to.

Wheaton College estimates that about 35% of the US population identifies as evangelical Christian. Add to that Catholics, and those two groups overlap handily with that 46%.

But that's not what I was saying. I was saying that the vast majority of people who believe in other religions or who do not identify as believers at all do not see it that way.

[GuitarStv]

From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.

If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.

Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.

Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.

Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.

You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.

Several people have espoused this point, but yours has been the most succinct.

If you would, can you please tell me what the difference is to you between someone being motivated by their religion to pass something into law restricting it, and someone being motivated by their conscious or whatnot to pass a different law restricting something? This is assuming we're not talking about imposing someone's religion in terms of dictating that they come to church on Sunday morning and worship but instead that they are guided by ethics that come from a religious standpoint to see something as immoral whereas others would be guided by their conscious/upbringing/whatever else to see something else is immoral or to disagree about morality. If you would prefer to not answer and/or others would, that's great. I'm just curious as to the line of reasoning.

The “life begins at conception” idea is not supported by science. It is supported by a religion (recent right-leaning Christianity).

Your (general sense) belief in this should not impact my decision. Or my body.

I guess what I'm getting at is, there's a lot of things science doesn't support one way or the other. Pretty much every ethical issue science doesn't really support. It doesn't support that theft is bad or someone doesn't have the right to impose their will on someone else. That's where ethics come in, and aren't all of our ethics guided by something one way or the other? I've always had a hard time seeing the distinction between an ethical point guided by religion and an ethical point guided by, well, not religion.

Not every issue claims to have a scientific basis, though.

Ethics are guided by something, yes. But we have separation of church and state. So no, ethical points almost exclusively guided by one person or group’s religion are not valid.

This is a weird argument to make Kris.

Ethics are guided by one's philosophy, which is often heavily influenced by religious (or irreligious) beliefs.  It is confusing to tell someone they can't make ethical decisions and judgements based upon their personal understanding of moral behaviour to be.  How else would one make this sort of decision?

While I often find myself viewing religion as a damaging delusion, the separation of church and state does not (and should not) prevent religious people from advocating for things that they believe to be right.  That almost seems to be an attempt at thought control - no different from a religious person telling an atheist that their viewpoint shouldn't count due to lack of faith.  It also seems to stand counter to the second half of Jefferson's comments regarding church and state:

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

Not at all. Of course people can make ethical decisions and judgments based on their personal understanding. They can argue that life begins at conception and that therefore abortion is morally wrong all day long. They can argue this in church, from the pulpit, and in their house. The can do it on the street, they can go door to door, and they can publish articles on it. I'm not in any way arguing that there be a law prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.

But what I am arguing is that a lawmaker have the ethical and moral compass to recognize that when their belief comes from a religious perspective -- and when that religious perspective is not shared by the vast majority of people of many other religions, as well as people of no faith -- that attempting to codify that belief into a law is overreach and should not be attempted in the United States of America.

Getting back to the topic of abortion - 46% of the US population identified as pro-life and 48% as pro-choice (https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx).  It's difficult for me to see this as a 'vast majority' or to see pro-choice advocacy as indication of religious overreach.  Are you getting different numbers somewhere?

As previously mentioned, I think the discussion of when life starts in the abortion debate is really a red herring.  The important question to answer is 'should the rights of a fetus supersede a woman's right to bodily autonomy'.  I haven't heard a logical argument for a woman to be required by law to give her uterus to another human being when she doesn't want to.

Wheaton College estimates that about 35% of the US population identifies as evangelical Christian. Add to that Catholics, and those two groups overlap handily with that 46%.

But that's not what I was saying. I was saying that the vast majority of people who believe in other religions or who do not identify as believers at all do not see it that way.

The groups you mention are commonly pro-life supporters in the US . . . but the implication in the previous post seems to be arguing that they are overwhelmingly the only supporters.  What about the 22% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Pro-Life#:~:text=The%20Oxford%20Handbook%20of%20Religion,of%20atheists%20and%20agnostics%20do.) of non-religious unaffiliated Americans who are pro-life?  Or the 2 in 5 Muslims who believe that abortion should be illegal (https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/muslim/views-about-abortion/)?  Or the 1 in 3 Hindus who believe abortion should be illegal (https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/)?  Regardless of which way you slice it by religion, you will find a non-insignificant percentage of people who don't support abortion.

If you combine the number of evangelical Christians with the number of Catholics (21% - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/10/7-facts-about-american-catholics/#:~:text=1%20There%20are%20roughly%2051,2007%20to%2021%25%20in%202014.) you end up with 56% of Americans.  Which also means that a large portion (about one in five) of those religious people you've identified are OK with abortions.

Taken together, this would seem to indicate that the stance regarding abortion is not purely a Christian religious thing, and the overlap you mentioned is not as close as it would seem upon first glance.  It doesn't seem fair to pigeonhole the large number of people from disparate belief systems who do not agree with abortion as has been done.

[Kris]

From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.

If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.

Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.

Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.

Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.

You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.

Several people have espoused this point, but yours has been the most succinct.

If you would, can you please tell me what the difference is to you between someone being motivated by their religion to pass something into law restricting it, and someone being motivated by their conscious or whatnot to pass a different law restricting something? This is assuming we're not talking about imposing someone's religion in terms of dictating that they come to church on Sunday morning and worship but instead that they are guided by ethics that come from a religious standpoint to see something as immoral whereas others would be guided by their conscious/upbringing/whatever else to see something else is immoral or to disagree about morality. If you would prefer to not answer and/or others would, that's great. I'm just curious as to the line of reasoning.

The “life begins at conception” idea is not supported by science. It is supported by a religion (recent right-leaning Christianity).

Your (general sense) belief in this should not impact my decision. Or my body.

I guess what I'm getting at is, there's a lot of things science doesn't support one way or the other. Pretty much every ethical issue science doesn't really support. It doesn't support that theft is bad or someone doesn't have the right to impose their will on someone else. That's where ethics come in, and aren't all of our ethics guided by something one way or the other? I've always had a hard time seeing the distinction between an ethical point guided by religion and an ethical point guided by, well, not religion.

Not every issue claims to have a scientific basis, though.

Ethics are guided by something, yes. But we have separation of church and state. So no, ethical points almost exclusively guided by one person or group’s religion are not valid.

This is a weird argument to make Kris.

Ethics are guided by one's philosophy, which is often heavily influenced by religious (or irreligious) beliefs.  It is confusing to tell someone they can't make ethical decisions and judgements based upon their personal understanding of moral behaviour to be.  How else would one make this sort of decision?

While I often find myself viewing religion as a damaging delusion, the separation of church and state does not (and should not) prevent religious people from advocating for things that they believe to be right.  That almost seems to be an attempt at thought control - no different from a religious person telling an atheist that their viewpoint shouldn't count due to lack of faith.  It also seems to stand counter to the second half of Jefferson's comments regarding church and state:

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

Not at all. Of course people can make ethical decisions and judgments based on their personal understanding. They can argue that life begins at conception and that therefore abortion is morally wrong all day long. They can argue this in church, from the pulpit, and in their house. The can do it on the street, they can go door to door, and they can publish articles on it. I'm not in any way arguing that there be a law prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.

But what I am arguing is that a lawmaker have the ethical and moral compass to recognize that when their belief comes from a religious perspective -- and when that religious perspective is not shared by the vast majority of people of many other religions, as well as people of no faith -- that attempting to codify that belief into a law is overreach and should not be attempted in the United States of America.

Getting back to the topic of abortion - 46% of the US population identified as pro-life and 48% as pro-choice (https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx).  It's difficult for me to see this as a 'vast majority' or to see pro-choice advocacy as indication of religious overreach.  Are you getting different numbers somewhere?

As previously mentioned, I think the discussion of when life starts in the abortion debate is really a red herring.  The important question to answer is 'should the rights of a fetus supersede a woman's right to bodily autonomy'.  I haven't heard a logical argument for a woman to be required by law to give her uterus to another human being when she doesn't want to.

Wheaton College estimates that about 35% of the US population identifies as evangelical Christian. Add to that Catholics, and those two groups overlap handily with that 46%.

But that's not what I was saying. I was saying that the vast majority of people who believe in other religions or who do not identify as believers at all do not see it that way.

The groups you mention are commonly pro-life supporters in the US . . . but the implication in the previous post seems to be arguing that they are overwhelmingly the only supporters.  What about the 22% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Pro-Life#:~:text=The%20Oxford%20Handbook%20of%20Religion,of%20atheists%20and%20agnostics%20do.) of non-religious unaffiliated Americans who are pro-life?  Or the 2 in 5 Muslims who believe that abortion should be illegal (https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/muslim/views-about-abortion/)?  Or the 1 in 3 Hindus who believe abortion should be illegal (https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/)?  Regardless of which way you slice it by religion, you will find a non-insignificant percentage of people who don't support abortion.

If you combine the number of evangelical Christians with the number of Catholics (21% - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/10/7-facts-about-american-catholics/#:~:text=1%20There%20are%20roughly%2051,2007%20to%2021%25%20in%202014.) you end up with 56% of Americans.  Which also means that a large portion (about one in five) of those religious people you've identified are OK with abortions.

Taken together, this would seem to indicate that the stance regarding abortion is not purely a Christian religious thing, and the overlap you mentioned is not as close as it would seem upon first glance.  It doesn't seem fair to pigeonhole the large number of people from disparate belief systems who do not agree with abortion as has been done.

Many Catholics are pro-choice, yes. Despite being in conflict with their church and the pope. I respect that principled, pro-social justice stance a great deal.

If you want to argue about the difference between “majority” and “vast majority,” I’m cool with just saying majority.

[GuitarStv]

My issue was with the argument that separation of church and state should somehow prevent people from advocating for what they believe is right.

We've established:
- The population of the US is very closely split between pro-life/pro-choice
- While there's certainly some overlap, pro-life does not mean religious

So I think we should also be able to agree that pro-life advocacy in the political sphere does not therefore violate separation of church and state.

[Kris]

My issue was with the argument that separation of church and state should somehow prevent people from advocating for what they believe is right.

We've established:
- The population of the US is very closely split between pro-life/pro-choice
- While there's certainly some overlap, pro-life does not mean religious

So I think we should also be able to agree that pro-life advocacy in the political sphere does not therefore violate separation of church and state.

Yeah, agree to disagree, my guy.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I sort of answered this in my response to Stv directly above.

And I would also suggest as an aside that the moral "life begins at conception" standpoint is not only overreach when one attempts to codify that into a law... but that it is not a "biblical view on abortion." It is a viewpoint -- and a recent one -- of a very particular branch of Christianity. Which suggests to me that its use is a political one more than an ethical one, at least by cynical political leaders.

I'll add in your quote from above to GuitarStv that I think is what you were referring to:

"But what I am arguing is that a lawmaker have the ethical and moral compass to recognize that when their belief comes from a religious perspective -- and when that religious perspective is not shared by the vast majority of people of many other religions, as well as people of no faith -- that attempting to codify that belief into a law is overreach and should not be attempted in the United States of America."

First, I want to say, I'm not trying to imply that your other points aren't important such as the use of the issue as a political one by current cynical political leaders. For example, I actually very much agree with you on this that it's used by conservatives as a political football to entice conservative voters to vote for them when the politicians are apathetic at best on the issue. Case in point - Trump - *shudder*. Anyways, just wanted to mention I'm not snubbing the rest of what you're saying; I'm just curious about this particular line of thought.

Going back to what you said to GuitarStv, it sounds like the statement I copied would indicate that you're placing a lot of emphasis on it being about the majority? So, is that the sticking point, that it's a minority opinion in the US? By that, I am thinking of a couple of separate instances. If a majority of the U.S. supported restrictions on abortion - maybe full restrictions aren't realistic, but let's say a heartbeat bill or restrictions outside of the first trimester except for certain circumstances like rape or mother's safety. Would you be ok with it - by this, I'm meaning if you're looking at the majority for the issue, specifically itself?

Trying to look at another possibility of what you meant, I would say that while the population of atheists is growing in America, there's nowhere near a majority of atheists in America - maybe 20ish% or so, best I saw, as religiously unaffiliated with maybe 5% or so openly atheists and 5% openly agnostics give or take. Wouldn't it follow that atheist politicians are breaking that very rule if they're being motivated to pass laws that tie back into their unreligious perspectives - if you were meaning the majority matters from a philosophical framework?

[Kris]

I sort of answered this in my response to Stv directly above.

And I would also suggest as an aside that the moral "life begins at conception" standpoint is not only overreach when one attempts to codify that into a law... but that it is not a "biblical view on abortion." It is a viewpoint -- and a recent one -- of a very particular branch of Christianity. Which suggests to me that its use is a political one more than an ethical one, at least by cynical political leaders.

I'll add in your quote from above to GuitarStv that I think is what you were referring to:

"But what I am arguing is that a lawmaker have the ethical and moral compass to recognize that when their belief comes from a religious perspective -- and when that religious perspective is not shared by the vast majority of people of many other religions, as well as people of no faith -- that attempting to codify that belief into a law is overreach and should not be attempted in the United States of America."

First, I want to say, I'm not trying to imply that your other points aren't important such as the use of the issue as a political one by current cynical political leaders. For example, I actually very much agree with you on this that it's used by conservatives as a political football to entice conservative voters to vote for them when the politicians are apathetic at best on the issue. Case in point - Trump - *shudder*. Anyways, just wanted to mention I'm not snubbing the rest of what you're saying; I'm just curious about this particular line of thought.

Going back to what you said to GuitarStv, it sounds like the statement I copied would indicate that you're placing a lot of emphasis on it being about the majority? So, is that the sticking point, that it's a minority opinion in the US? By that, I am thinking of a couple of separate instances. If a majority of the U.S. supported restrictions on abortion - maybe full restrictions aren't realistic, but let's say a heartbeat bill or restrictions outside of the first trimester except for certain circumstances like rape or mother's safety. Would you be ok with it - by this, I'm meaning if you're looking at the majority for the issue, specifically itself?

Trying to look at another possibility of what you meant, I would say that while the population of atheists is growing in America, there's nowhere near a majority of atheists in America - maybe 20ish% or so, best I saw, as religiously unaffiliated with maybe 5% or so openly atheists and 5% openly agnostics give or take. Wouldn't it follow that atheist politicians are breaking that very rule if they're being motivated to pass laws that tie back into their unreligious perspectives - if you were meaning the majority matters from a philosophical framework?

No, it’s actually not at all about it being a majority or minority stance, and I’m sorry if it came off that way. It is about the fact that being pro-life personally is one thing, but thinking you have the right to legislate it into law is quite another, and that that belief is something that has arisen largely as an evangelical stance. And that this evangelical stance has been expressly cultivated by political leaders over the past few decades.

I am not at my computer, but If I remember to do so, I will link an article here that explores the roots of this theocratic position.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Those are not my main concern though. Overall, I would agree that yes, the word human definitely does have connotations. My first point is that we don't need to use connotations - it meets the definitions of human and life. There are connotations for a crap ton of things that may or may not apply to the conversation. I can say, I believe (because of what I've mentioned before about the words human life and because of other stuff I've thought of that differentiate this with the severed hand analogy that we can get into if you'd like) that human life in a fairly context-free situation fits unborn.

Second, you call out that there is the context for the word human. I don't disagree with this, but I very glad you brought up your examples, because it's a perfect illustration of the problems of connotation! You say "I would lay any odds you care to name that if you are honest you will admit that the image that comes to mind is that of something that at least resembles a developed body and perhaps with some form of consciousness/awareness/personality.  Maybe two arms, two legs, a head, body, smiling face, etc etc.  That's because the word "human" has connotations." Yes! You're absolutely right. The general human connotation does probably engender an average dude, 2 arms, 2 legs, a head, body, smiling, etc. But that's kind of my whole point. In any other context, connotations like that would be rightfully frowned upon; I mean, right? 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. aren't required to be a human. What about awareness or personality? Are we declaring people with severe mental disabilities as not human because a lack of some of this other "connotation" of being human? The connotation doesn't make the point. In other situations, it may not be as distasteful as labeling of someone as not a human who is disfigured or whatever; it may be simply a connotation of awareness/personality when someone is in a vegetative state. In that point, again, I doubt if push came to shove, people would say that they were not human because of it.

You've said that you feel like I need to take context into account in discussing in good faith. I feel like that is a very poor argument literally because of the very examples you gave. Yes, I am insisting on declaring the unborn human life because the connotations are crap. Best case, they are poorly thought out (thinking of a human in terms of their consciousness when most people would still call a human in a vegetative state as human); worst case it's really a very disturbing and repugnant connotation to take (2 arms, 2 legs, a certain level of consciousness/intellect). As I've mentioned before, these "connotations" and following through with the dehumanizing nature of them have lead to discrimination and loathsome behaviors.

I don't know whether to reply to this or not.

You have intentionally misquoted me by deleting a pertinent part of my post and then tried to call me out and suggest I would deny a person's humanity because they were in a vegetative state, mentally challenged, or disfigured.

For someone who has railed so consistently at ctuser1 for making assumptions about what you mean it's extremely disappointing to see you resort to intentionally misquoting to try to twist my point into something it clearly was not and then blatantly insult me based on your deceit.

I think it's in completely good faith to insist on calling unborn human life because it's very easy to defend calling the unborn that in a contextless environment with base definitions and yes, at least some scientific backing. So it's easy to defend it without context, and with context, well, that context is worthy of being disputed and fought against. There are a ton of things about the unborn that go aginst the connotations of humans that most people have, but those connotations range from: at best a simplistic check box because we don't need to think fully through the word human every time we use it to at worst, inappropriate biases that lead us to look down on others who are different from us, of which I would include the unborn in that category.

Perhaps if you wanted to label a single celled organism "living human DNA" or something like that there could be meaning terms of reference for a discussion.  If you insist a single celled organism is an "unborn human life" and accuse anyone who disagrees as simply trying to distance themselves from reality there isn't any ground for rational discussion as far as I can see.

Couple that with your willingness to resort to intentionally misquoting me in the most obvious and frankly insulting way in order to tilt at a convenient and disgustingly low strawman and I will bow out of what I mistakenly thought was an honest and respectful attempt at dialogue.

Ok, so first of all, I have clearly done something I didn't intend to do. I've read through the posts, and what I think I've done is come across in one of two ways: that I called you out as if you were thinking that defining a human in terms of 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. was correct (and thus accusing you of something you clearly don't believe in) or else I've jumped the gun when you were just trying to set up a future discussion of connotations and I implied you were simply going to leave it at those connotations (in which case I would be arguing in bad faith). Or potentially something else I am missing. All I can say is that I intended to do neither of those things, and I apologize that I came across that way.

Let me take you through the tangled web of thoughts in my head :-). It seemed like you were trying to find common ground. Originally, I was arguing strongly against connotations as a concept as if I was wanting to distance myself from them altogether. Then, you made some points about connotations of humans, and gave some examples of 2 arms, 2 legs, consciousness/awareness, etc. I was really excited because I realized that yes, you are absolutely right - there is common ground there. I still feel that setting connotations aside, unborn is human life pretty straight forward. However, it is because of the connotations that were brought up that is why I think so strongly that unborn human life should be called human life - because those connotations (the ones mentioned) aren't the best (I'm assuming we agree on that?). My biggest problem in my argument is that in my verbiage I limited your argument to those connotations, and you very clearly stated you just wanted to start there not finish there. All I can say in my defense is that I was truly not thinking you wanted to discriminate against anyone or thought they were less than human because of all of that stuff, and I really did think it would simply be a case of you seeing how those connotations aren't good, and thus seeing why I think connotations themselves at least can be dangerous. Ultimately, I jumped the gun, and that's on me. If you want to continue, I'll be glad to listen and not jump the gun as quickly as best as I can. If not, I completely understand.

I'll end this by saying, if you don't want to continue the conversation, I completely understand, and I want to say thanks for the dialogue that's helped me realize a little more about my own motivations for the discussion. Either way, I apologize for jumping in so quickly and mischaracterizing your points whether I did it in the way(s) I think I did or in another way.

[PKFFW]

Ok, so first of all, I have clearly done something I didn't intend to do.

My actual post....

I would lay any odds you care to name that if you are honest you will admit that the image that comes to mind is that of something that at least resembles a developed body and perhaps with some form of consciousness/awareness/personality (whether intact and undamaged or not....for example a "human" who is in a vegetative state).  Maybe two arms, two legs, a head, body, smiling face, etc etc.  That's because the word "human" has connotations.

How you chose to quote me...

"I would lay any odds you care to name that if you are honest you will admit that the image that comes to mind is that of something that at least resembles a developed body and perhaps with some form of consciousness/awareness/personality.  Maybe two arms, two legs, a head, body, smiling face, etc etc.  That's because the word "human" has connotations."

Considering the bolded part is
1: in the middle of the comment...
2: clearly pertinent when considering point...
3: you then chose to suggest humanity could be denied if someone was mentally deficient etc

I find it hard to believe you did not intend to misquote.

I've read through the posts, and what I think I've done is come across in one of two ways: that I called you out as if you were thinking that defining a human in terms of 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. was correct (and thus accusing you of something you clearly don't believe in) or else I've jumped the gun when you were just trying to set up a future discussion of connotations and I implied you were simply going to leave it at those connotations (in which case I would be arguing in bad faith). Or potentially something else I am missing. All I can say is that I intended to do neither of those things, and I apologize that I came across that way.

Let me take you through the tangled web of thoughts in my head :-). It seemed like you were trying to find common ground. Originally, I was arguing strongly against connotations as a concept as if I was wanting to distance myself from them altogether. Then, you made some points about connotations of humans, and gave some examples of 2 arms, 2 legs, consciousness/awareness, etc. I was really excited because I realized that yes, you are absolutely right - there is common ground there. I still feel that setting connotations aside, unborn is human life pretty straight forward. However, it is because of the connotations that were brought up that is why I think so strongly that unborn human life should be called human life - because those connotations (the ones mentioned) aren't the best (I'm assuming we agree on that?). My biggest problem in my argument is that in my verbiage I limited your argument to those connotations, and you very clearly stated you just wanted to start there not finish there. All I can say in my defense is that I was truly not thinking you wanted to discriminate against anyone or thought they were less than human because of all of that stuff, and I really did think it would simply be a case of you seeing how those connotations aren't good, and thus seeing why I think connotations themselves at least can be dangerous. Ultimately, I jumped the gun, and that's on me. If you want to continue, I'll be glad to listen and not jump the gun as quickly as best as I can. If not, I completely understand.

I'll end this by saying, if you don't want to continue the conversation, I completely understand, and I want to say thanks for the dialogue that's helped me realize a little more about my own motivations for the discussion. Either way, I apologize for jumping in so quickly and mischaracterizing your points whether I did it in the way(s) I think I did or in another way.

No I clearly did not mean to suggest my examples were the only such connotations for human.  However, whether they are the only connotations or not, they are connotations that I would think almost every single human being on the planet would imagine when hearing the phrase "a human life".   Using the phrase "an unborn human life" is clearly trying to invoke those connotations while disingenuously claiming that such a phrase avoids such connotations and is "scientifically correct".  The fact such a phrase has such connotations is exactly why science has already come up with accepted "scientifically correct" terminology.  Perhaps if you really do want to avoid all connotations and be scientifically correct, try using the scientific terminology.  Zygote has none of the connotations you claim to be worried about and is more accurate when describing a single celled organism.

To utilise the phrasing you do, claim anyone who disagrees is merely trying to distance themselves from reality and while also intentionally editing my post when quoting me, makes it clear to me there's nothing left to discuss.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Ok, so first of all, I have clearly done something I didn't intend to do.

My actual post....

I would lay any odds you care to name that if you are honest you will admit that the image that comes to mind is that of something that at least resembles a developed body and perhaps with some form of consciousness/awareness/personality (whether intact and undamaged or not....for example a "human" who is in a vegetative state).  Maybe two arms, two legs, a head, body, smiling face, etc etc.  That's because the word "human" has connotations.

How you chose to quote me...

"I would lay any odds you care to name that if you are honest you will admit that the image that comes to mind is that of something that at least resembles a developed body and perhaps with some form of consciousness/awareness/personality.  Maybe two arms, two legs, a head, body, smiling face, etc etc.  That's because the word "human" has connotations."

Considering the bolded part is
1: in the middle of the comment...
2: clearly pertinent when considering point...
3: you then chose to suggest humanity could be denied if someone was mentally deficient etc

I find it hard to believe you did not intend to misquote.

I've read through the posts, and what I think I've done is come across in one of two ways: that I called you out as if you were thinking that defining a human in terms of 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. was correct (and thus accusing you of something you clearly don't believe in) or else I've jumped the gun when you were just trying to set up a future discussion of connotations and I implied you were simply going to leave it at those connotations (in which case I would be arguing in bad faith). Or potentially something else I am missing. All I can say is that I intended to do neither of those things, and I apologize that I came across that way.

Let me take you through the tangled web of thoughts in my head :-). It seemed like you were trying to find common ground. Originally, I was arguing strongly against connotations as a concept as if I was wanting to distance myself from them altogether. Then, you made some points about connotations of humans, and gave some examples of 2 arms, 2 legs, consciousness/awareness, etc. I was really excited because I realized that yes, you are absolutely right - there is common ground there. I still feel that setting connotations aside, unborn is human life pretty straight forward. However, it is because of the connotations that were brought up that is why I think so strongly that unborn human life should be called human life - because those connotations (the ones mentioned) aren't the best (I'm assuming we agree on that?). My biggest problem in my argument is that in my verbiage I limited your argument to those connotations, and you very clearly stated you just wanted to start there not finish there. All I can say in my defense is that I was truly not thinking you wanted to discriminate against anyone or thought they were less than human because of all of that stuff, and I really did think it would simply be a case of you seeing how those connotations aren't good, and thus seeing why I think connotations themselves at least can be dangerous. Ultimately, I jumped the gun, and that's on me. If you want to continue, I'll be glad to listen and not jump the gun as quickly as best as I can. If not, I completely understand.

I'll end this by saying, if you don't want to continue the conversation, I completely understand, and I want to say thanks for the dialogue that's helped me realize a little more about my own motivations for the discussion. Either way, I apologize for jumping in so quickly and mischaracterizing your points whether I did it in the way(s) I think I did or in another way.

No I clearly did not mean to suggest my examples were the only such connotations for human.  However, whether they are the only connotations or not, they are connotations that I would think almost every single human being on the planet would imagine when hearing the phrase "a human life".   Using the phrase "an unborn human life" is clearly trying to invoke those connotations while disingenuously claiming that such a phrase avoids such connotations and is "scientifically correct".  The fact such a phrase has such connotations is exactly why science has already come up with accepted "scientifically correct" terminology.  Perhaps if you really do want to avoid all connotations and be scientifically correct, try using the scientific terminology.  Zygote has none of the connotations you claim to be worried about and is more accurate when describing a single celled organism.

To utilise the phrasing you do, claim anyone who disagrees is merely trying to distance themselves from reality and while also intentionally editing my post when quoting me, makes it clear to me there's nothing left to discuss.

Crap, you are absolutely right. I typed it all out manually based on reading it, not copying it, and I glossed over the parenthesis in my reading/recopying of it. It was an unintentional mistake, but as I've clearly lost your trust in this conversation, I don't expect you to believe me at this point. ETA "I also should not have said that all pro-choicers did it for a particular reason. That was another mistake." Again, my apologies, and thanks for taking the time to show me my mistake. Hopefully we can have other productive conversations in the future, and I can demonstrate that this was an accident.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I sort of answered this in my response to Stv directly above.

And I would also suggest as an aside that the moral "life begins at conception" standpoint is not only overreach when one attempts to codify that into a law... but that it is not a "biblical view on abortion." It is a viewpoint -- and a recent one -- of a very particular branch of Christianity. Which suggests to me that its use is a political one more than an ethical one, at least by cynical political leaders.

I'll add in your quote from above to GuitarStv that I think is what you were referring to:

"But what I am arguing is that a lawmaker have the ethical and moral compass to recognize that when their belief comes from a religious perspective -- and when that religious perspective is not shared by the vast majority of people of many other religions, as well as people of no faith -- that attempting to codify that belief into a law is overreach and should not be attempted in the United States of America."

First, I want to say, I'm not trying to imply that your other points aren't important such as the use of the issue as a political one by current cynical political leaders. For example, I actually very much agree with you on this that it's used by conservatives as a political football to entice conservative voters to vote for them when the politicians are apathetic at best on the issue. Case in point - Trump - *shudder*. Anyways, just wanted to mention I'm not snubbing the rest of what you're saying; I'm just curious about this particular line of thought.

Going back to what you said to GuitarStv, it sounds like the statement I copied would indicate that you're placing a lot of emphasis on it being about the majority? So, is that the sticking point, that it's a minority opinion in the US? By that, I am thinking of a couple of separate instances. If a majority of the U.S. supported restrictions on abortion - maybe full restrictions aren't realistic, but let's say a heartbeat bill or restrictions outside of the first trimester except for certain circumstances like rape or mother's safety. Would you be ok with it - by this, I'm meaning if you're looking at the majority for the issue, specifically itself?

Trying to look at another possibility of what you meant, I would say that while the population of atheists is growing in America, there's nowhere near a majority of atheists in America - maybe 20ish% or so, best I saw, as religiously unaffiliated with maybe 5% or so openly atheists and 5% openly agnostics give or take. Wouldn't it follow that atheist politicians are breaking that very rule if they're being motivated to pass laws that tie back into their unreligious perspectives - if you were meaning the majority matters from a philosophical framework?

No, it’s actually not at all about it being a majority or minority stance, and I’m sorry if it came off that way. It is about the fact that being pro-life personally is one thing, but thinking you have the right to legislate it into law is quite another, and that that belief is something that has arisen largely as an evangelical stance. And that this evangelical stance has been expressly cultivated by political leaders over the past few decades.

I am not at my computer, but If I remember to do so, I will link an article here that explores the roots of this theocratic position.

I think I understand it better now. It sounds like what you're meaning is that you feel like it's a contrived pseudo-religious issue, and that's why you call it out as not legislating a religious stance? Am I right on this? If so, would you say that this is the only issue (or at least a very rare one) that you would feel this way for people being (or claiming) to be motivated by religion for?

[LennStar]

One of the easiest ways to define when life begins is when the cells start dividing on their own. An unfertilized egg doesn't divide on its own and turn into a new life, no matter how much time, no matter the conditions, no matter anything at all. Same for sperm. Never will sperm alone turn into a person. However, fertilize an egg with sperm and it starts dividing, right away starting the chain reaction that is life. That is irrefutable science. No human being but Jesus Christ (or no one ever, if you don't believe in Jesus) comes from an unfertilized egg, and no fertilized egg turns into an elbow, or a liver, or a 3rd arm, or anything like that. They turn into people. That's science.

Actually conservative estimates would suggest approximately half of fertilised eggs do not turn into people, they turn into dead clumps of cells some days or weeks later.  The number is probably significantly higher.  And note, that's from natural causes, not from abortions.  That's science.

But an invalid argument for the point made. It is possible for the fetus to get "grown up". That it not always works out does not change it.

I would say though that this definition is not helpful for the topic. Death is part of life. And that includes killing. Everyone of us is killing live all the time. Most of it is just so tiny and "insignificant" we don't even realize it.
Why make a difference between a bunch of cells from a species "fly" and a species "human"?
The only reason I can think of is feeling pain / intelligent etc. (btw. most of us are still killing cows - if you are against abortions because "life" you definitely can't eat cows or pigs or any other big animal)

And this is actually where the time until when abortions are legal is from. It is up to the point where you can say that the fetus has "higher functions", such as reaction to sound. That you could take as the point where the life becomes a human.

An old alternative is "able to life outside the mother", but that has become muddy a lot with machinery able to keep fetuses alive (albeit often with damages) even months earlier.
 

[PKFFW]

One of the easiest ways to define when life begins is when the cells start dividing on their own. An unfertilized egg doesn't divide on its own and turn into a new life, no matter how much time, no matter the conditions, no matter anything at all. Same for sperm. Never will sperm alone turn into a person. However, fertilize an egg with sperm and it starts dividing, right away starting the chain reaction that is life. That is irrefutable science. No human being but Jesus Christ (or no one ever, if you don't believe in Jesus) comes from an unfertilized egg, and no fertilized egg turns into an elbow, or a liver, or a 3rd arm, or anything like that. They turn into people. That's science.

Actually conservative estimates would suggest approximately half of fertilised eggs do not turn into people, they turn into dead clumps of cells some days or weeks later.  The number is probably significantly higher.  And note, that's from natural causes, not from abortions.  That's science.

But an invalid argument for the point made. It is possible for the fetus to get "grown up". That it not always works out does not change it.

My point was in reply to the statement "They turn into people.  That's science."

"Fertilised eggs" (human ones anyway)just as often, and more likely more often, turn into dead clumps of cells as they do people.  That's science.

[simonsez]

My issue was with the argument that separation of church and state should somehow prevent people from advocating for what they believe is right.

We've established:
- The population of the US is very closely split between pro-life/pro-choice
- While there's certainly some overlap, pro-life does not mean religious

So I think we should also be able to agree that pro-life advocacy in the political sphere does not therefore violate separation of church and state.

This reminds me of a talk I had with my mother a few years ago shortly after my wife had a miscarriage that did not require abortion but it was talked about as a possibility.  My mother has identified as a Christian and pro-life as long as I can remember.  When I asked her if she was in my wife's shoes what she would've done (in light of the complications that may have required the abortion, the fetus was never going to come to term either way) she said she would not have had the abortion because of her principles.  I explained this was well within her rights to do so.  When I asked her if my wife should have the *option* to have an abortion when medical circumstances say it's a good idea, she agreed that my wife should have the option.  When I asked her if this meant she was pro-choice, she shuddered for a second and then explained that while she might be in theory, she just hated the term "pro-choice" and would never identify that way.  I thought that was interesting.  A pro-choicer who identifies as pro-life simply because the label sounds better.  I wonder if my wife's situation changed her way of thinking at all or if she was always this way underneath but just never expressed it.

Since then I view the dichotomy of pro-choice vs pro-life with statistical doubts (and I say this as a statistician for a career).  I don't think the black and white nature of it is particularly helpful in reality though it is simpler for thought.  There are so many layers to this and then quantifying/qualifying it also has all sorts of biases with polling questions, definitions, loaded words, etc. 

Most days I am thankful to not have a uterus largely due to this issue.

[RetiredAt63]

My issue was with the argument that separation of church and state should somehow prevent people from advocating for what they believe is right.

We've established:
- The population of the US is very closely split between pro-life/pro-choice
- While there's certainly some overlap, pro-life does not mean religious

So I think we should also be able to agree that pro-life advocacy in the political sphere does not therefore violate separation of church and state.

This reminds me of a talk I had with my mother a few years ago shortly after my wife had a miscarriage that did not require abortion but it was talked about as a possibility.  My mother has identified as a Christian and pro-life as long as I can remember.  When I asked her if she was in my wife's shoes what she would've done (in light of the complications that may have required the abortion, the fetus was never going to come to term either way) she said she would not have had the abortion because of her principles.  I explained this was well within her rights to do so.  When I asked her if my wife should have the *option* to have an abortion when medical circumstances say it's a good idea, she agreed that my wife should have the option.  When I asked her if this meant she was pro-choice, she shuddered for a second and then explained that while she might be in theory, she just hated the term "pro-choice" and would never identify that way.  I thought that was interesting.  A pro-choicer who identifies as pro-life simply because the label sounds better.  I wonder if my wife's situation changed her way of thinking at all or if she was always this way underneath but just never expressed it.

Since then I view the dichotomy of pro-choice vs pro-life with statistical doubts (and I say this as a statistician for a career).  I don't think the black and white nature of it is particularly helpful in reality though it is simpler for thought.  There are so many layers to this and then quantifying/qualifying it also has all sorts of biases with polling questions, definitions, loaded words, etc. 

Most days I am thankful to not have a uterus largely due to this issue.

I was going to write something snarky about at least we don't get prostate cancer, but decided to refrain.  Prostate cancer is so much less a problem than breast and uterine/ovarian cancer that it is a blip on the radar.

I think your conversation with your mother was really revealing.  Most "pro-choice" people I know are not out advocating that abortion be super easy.  What we would like to see is access to contraceptives be super easy, so the need for abortion goes way down.  Then stop the infantilizing of women by imposing so many restrictions on them and their doctors for early abortions where contraceptive failures happened (or contraception was not used, it happens even for the best of planners).  Late abortions are overwhelming for medical reasons if early abortions are not delayed so they become late abortions.

Oh, and this is where I make my obligatory (for me) statement that Henry Morgentaler is one of my heroes.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

I'm pro-choice and I want abortion to be super-easy. I don't know why women should have to jump through hoops for it. Abortion should be easily accessible, de-stigmatised and free (paid by the government). Abortion counselling should be free. There should be free one week's leave from work (paid by the government) for any woman who wants an abortion. Taxpayers should pay for all these services.

Letting women abort babies they don't want is a net benefit to the women and to society.

[Syonyk]

I'm pro-choice and I want abortion to be super-easy. I don't know why women should have to jump through hoops for it. Abortion should be easily accessible, de-stigmatised and free (paid by the government). Abortion counselling should be free. There should be free one week's leave from work (paid by the government) for any woman who wants an abortion. Taxpayers should pay for all these services.

Letting women abort babies they don't want is a net benefit to the women and to society.

Quoted for, "Yes, there are people like this out there."

"Governments murdering their own citizens and handing out time off work for having done so" isn't exactly the sort of "progress" I'm interested in.  And were this a thing, I'd probably figure out ways, no matter how inefficient, to avoid paying taxes.  Up to and including reducing my career significantly.  I'm already uncomfortable with how much federal funding for abortion services there is.

[EvenSteven]

I'm pro-choice and I want abortion to be super-easy. I don't know why women should have to jump through hoops for it. Abortion should be easily accessible, de-stigmatised and free (paid by the government). Abortion counselling should be free. There should be free one week's leave from work (paid by the government) for any woman who wants an abortion. Taxpayers should pay for all these services.

Letting women abort babies they don't want is a net benefit to the women and to society.

Quoted for, "Yes, there are people like this out there."

"Governments murdering their own citizens and handing out time off work for having done so" isn't exactly the sort of "progress" I'm interested in. 

Wait, embryos are citizens now!? When did that happen?

And were this a thing, I'd probably figure out ways, no matter how inefficient, to avoid paying taxes.  Up to and including reducing my career significantly.  I'm already uncomfortable with how much federal funding for abortion services there is.

Reduce your career!? Outrageous! Around here we all demand you work a long career until you die.

[Syonyk]

Wait, embryos are citizens now!? When did that happen?

Legally, they're not.  However, if you consider them morally humans in the womb, then they reasonably should deserve citizen protections, as they will be citizens after birth.  We generally frown on governments supporting the killing of massive numbers of people in their countries.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

I'm pro-choice and I want abortion to be super-easy. I don't know why women should have to jump through hoops for it. Abortion should be easily accessible, de-stigmatised and free (paid by the government). Abortion counselling should be free. There should be free one week's leave from work (paid by the government) for any woman who wants an abortion. Taxpayers should pay for all these services.

Letting women abort babies they don't want is a net benefit to the women and to society.

Quoted for, "Yes, there are people like this out there."

"Governments murdering their own citizens and handing out time off work for having done so" isn't exactly the sort of "progress" I'm interested in.  And were this a thing, I'd probably figure out ways, no matter how inefficient, to avoid paying taxes.  Up to and including reducing my career significantly.  I'm already uncomfortable with how much federal funding for abortion services there is.

That's nice.

[MudPuppy]

@Syonyk are you in the US?

[OtherJen]

I'm pro-choice and I want abortion to be super-easy. I don't know why women should have to jump through hoops for it. Abortion should be easily accessible, de-stigmatised and free (paid by the government). Abortion counselling should be free. There should be free one week's leave from work (paid by the government) for any woman who wants an abortion. Taxpayers should pay for all these services.

Letting women abort babies they don't want is a net benefit to the women and to society.

Quoted for, "Yes, there are people like this out there."

"Governments murdering their own citizens and handing out time off work for having done so" isn't exactly the sort of "progress" I'm interested in.  And were this a thing, I'd probably figure out ways, no matter how inefficient, to avoid paying taxes.  Up to and including reducing my career significantly.  I'm already uncomfortable with how much federal funding for abortion services there is.

If you're in the US, does that mean you are opposed to Medicaid funding of abortions performed in cases of rape, incest, or maternal life endangerment? Because those are the only exceptions listed in the Hyde Amendment: https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-funding-abortion-under-medicaid

[wenchsenior]

I'm pro-choice and I want abortion to be super-easy. I don't know why women should have to jump through hoops for it. Abortion should be easily accessible, de-stigmatised and free (paid by the government). Abortion counselling should be free. There should be free one week's leave from work (paid by the government) for any woman who wants an abortion. Taxpayers should pay for all these services.

Letting women abort babies they don't want is a net benefit to the women and to society.

Quoted for, "Yes, there are people like this out there."

"Governments murdering their own citizens and handing out time off work for having done so" isn't exactly the sort of "progress" I'm interested in.  And were this a thing, I'd probably figure out ways, no matter how inefficient, to avoid paying taxes.  Up to and including reducing my career significantly.  I'm already uncomfortable with how much federal funding for abortion services there is.

That's nice.

HOLY SHIT.  I agree with Bloop Bloop about something!  Is the world ending or moon turning blue?  I'm feeling weirdly sentimental about this moment.  Seems there is always common ground to be had somewhere. :highfive:

[simonsez]

My issue was with the argument that separation of church and state should somehow prevent people from advocating for what they believe is right.

We've established:
- The population of the US is very closely split between pro-life/pro-choice
- While there's certainly some overlap, pro-life does not mean religious

So I think we should also be able to agree that pro-life advocacy in the political sphere does not therefore violate separation of church and state.

This reminds me of a talk I had with my mother a few years ago shortly after my wife had a miscarriage that did not require abortion but it was talked about as a possibility.  My mother has identified as a Christian and pro-life as long as I can remember.  When I asked her if she was in my wife's shoes what she would've done (in light of the complications that may have required the abortion, the fetus was never going to come to term either way) she said she would not have had the abortion because of her principles.  I explained this was well within her rights to do so.  When I asked her if my wife should have the *option* to have an abortion when medical circumstances say it's a good idea, she agreed that my wife should have the option.  When I asked her if this meant she was pro-choice, she shuddered for a second and then explained that while she might be in theory, she just hated the term "pro-choice" and would never identify that way.  I thought that was interesting.  A pro-choicer who identifies as pro-life simply because the label sounds better.  I wonder if my wife's situation changed her way of thinking at all or if she was always this way underneath but just never expressed it.

Since then I view the dichotomy of pro-choice vs pro-life with statistical doubts (and I say this as a statistician for a career).  I don't think the black and white nature of it is particularly helpful in reality though it is simpler for thought.  There are so many layers to this and then quantifying/qualifying it also has all sorts of biases with polling questions, definitions, loaded words, etc. 

Most days I am thankful to not have a uterus largely due to this issue.

I was going to write something snarky about at least we don't get prostate cancer, but decided to refrain.  Prostate cancer is so much less a problem than breast and uterine/ovarian cancer that it is a blip on the radar.

I think your conversation with your mother was really revealing.  Most "pro-choice" people I know are not out advocating that abortion be super easy.  What we would like to see is access to contraceptives be super easy, so the need for abortion goes way down.  Then stop the infantilizing of women by imposing so many restrictions on them and their doctors for early abortions where contraceptive failures happened (or contraception was not used, it happens even for the best of planners).  Late abortions are overwhelming for medical reasons if early abortions are not delayed so they become late abortions.

Oh, and this is where I make my obligatory (for me) statement that Henry Morgentaler is one of my heroes.

Didn't mean to offend anyone, just couldn't imagine living as a woman and feeling that constant pressure that some rights over your body could be dictated by others without any real idea what the future would bring.  I can't think of an equivalent in males and therefore can't fully empathize.  That has to be so annoying and possibly even scary at times.  That's just such a foreign concept to me.

I bolded the part above because we're still talking about a nonzero number of abortions.  Anything above zero to me is pro-choice.  And I agree with you of course, any low hanging fruit on education and access to contraceptives prior to conception that reduces any need for abortions later on should be encouraged, normalized (no stigma), and offered widely.  Utopia would be access to abortions but none actually happened due to perfect family planning, zero rape, zero incest, zero pregnancy complications, etc.  That's not reality though.  To each their own on how they would handle it.

[RetiredAt63]

I'm pro-choice and I want abortion to be super-easy. I don't know why women should have to jump through hoops for it. Abortion should be easily accessible, de-stigmatised and free (paid by the government). Abortion counselling should be free. There should be free one week's leave from work (paid by the government) for any woman who wants an abortion. Taxpayers should pay for all these services.

Letting women abort babies they don't want is a net benefit to the women and to society.

Quoted for, "Yes, there are people like this out there."

"Governments murdering their own citizens and handing out time off work for having done so" isn't exactly the sort of "progress" I'm interested in.  And were this a thing, I'd probably figure out ways, no matter how inefficient, to avoid paying taxes.  Up to and including reducing my career significantly.  I'm already uncomfortable with how much federal funding for abortion services there is.

That's nice.

HOLY SHIT.  I agree with Bloop Bloop about something!  Is the world ending or moon turning blue?  I'm feeling weirdly sentimental about this moment.  Seems there is always common ground to be had somewhere. :highfive:

I know!  I felt the same way.   ;-)

[Syonyk]

@Syonyk are you in the US?

Yes.

If you're in the US, does that mean you are opposed to Medicaid funding of abortions performed in cases of rape, incest, or maternal life endangerment? Because those are the only exceptions listed in the Hyde Amendment: https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-funding-abortion-under-medicaid

Currently, that's the case, and while I'm not particularly OK with it, it's not crossed a threshold of "minimize federal tax payments."  Were federal funding available for general purpose "on demand" abortions, I would probably have to rethink things.

[RetiredAt63]

I think your conversation with your mother was really revealing.  Most "pro-choice" people I know are not out advocating that abortion be super easy.  What we would like to see is access to contraceptives be super easy, so the need for abortion goes way down.  Then stop the infantilizing of women by imposing so many restrictions on them and their doctors for early abortions where contraceptive failures happened (or contraception was not used, it happens even for the best of planners).  Late abortions are overwhelming for medical reasons if early abortions are not delayed so they become late abortions.

Oh, and this is where I make my obligatory (for me) statement that Henry Morgentaler is one of my heroes.

Didn't mean to offend anyone, just couldn't imagine living as a woman and feeling that constant pressure that some rights over your body could be dictated by others without any real idea what the future would bring.  I can't think of an equivalent in males and therefore can't fully empathize.  That has to be so annoying and possibly even scary at times.  That's just such a foreign concept to me.

I bolded the part above because we're still talking about a nonzero number of abortions.  Anything above zero to me is pro-choice.  And I agree with you of course, any low hanging fruit on education and access to contraceptives prior to conception that reduces any need for abortions later on should be encouraged, normalized (no stigma), and offered widely.  Utopia would be access to abortions but none actually happened due to perfect family planning, zero rape, zero incest, zero pregnancy complications, etc.  That's not reality though.  To each their own on how they would handle it.

That would be utopia.  The morning-after pill would help also.

To each their own on how they would handle it is pro-choice, because it lets the one affected handle it, with her doctor.  Women have always handled it, usually with dire consequences because illegal abortions are back-room or at-home abortions and infections and perforated uteri are common.  The Call the Mid-wife TV series (set in the 50s and 60s) had an episode dealing with just this.

Not to mention "having to get married" - the 2 cases I know of personally both ended in divorce, because it is not a great way to start a marriage.

[CodingHare]

I 100% agree with Bloop Bloop.  Outcomes for women and society improve the more abortion is de-stigmatized.

I hate the idea that only rape/incest/fatal heath outcomes are "worthy" of an abortion.  I am happily married.  I take every precaution not to get pregnant because I don't want kids.  Kids would be detrimental to our current financial picture.  I don't like small children.  I'd resent the fuck out of having to take care of a child right now.  So we do our part to not have any.

But if I got pregnant, since all birth control methods have some failure rate?  I'd 100% get an abortion as soon as I knew because I don't want kids.  It is unethical to bring unwanted children into the world in my book. It is unethical to require me to sacrifice my health when I don't want to.  I don't want to deal with incontinence as a result of giving birth.  I don't want to deal with large hormonal changes.  I don't want my breasts to get sore and tender.  I don't want any of it, and while I would consider making that sacrifice for a wanted child, I certainly am not doing it just to give the state another taxpayer.

But somehow my suffering would be irrelevant unless I had a proper excuse in the eyes of pro-life people.  My organs don't matter unless they're in servitude to a fetus.  Then suddenly they are the state's organs.  How dystopic.

Perhaps we can start requiring all men with two kidneys and two lungs to start involuntarily donating them to people who need replacements?  After all, the sick need those organs more than the healthy, and the state has an interest in intervening in your personal health to keep potential taxpayers alive.

[GuitarStv]

I 100% agree with Bloop Bloop.  Outcomes for women and society improve the more abortion is de-stigmatized.

I hate the idea that only rape/incest/fatal heath outcomes are "worthy" of an abortion.  I am happily married.  I take every precaution not to get pregnant because I don't want kids.  Kids would be detrimental to our current financial picture.  I don't like small children.  I'd resent the fuck out of having to take care of a child right now.  So we do our part to not have any.

But if I got pregnant, since all birth control methods have some failure rate?  I'd 100% get an abortion as soon as I knew because I don't want kids.  It is unethical to bring unwanted children into the world in my book. It is unethical to require me to sacrifice my health when I don't want to.  I don't want to deal with incontinence as a result of giving birth.  I don't want to deal with large hormonal changes.  I don't want my breasts to get sore and tender.  I don't want any of it, and while I would consider making that sacrifice for a wanted child, I certainly am not doing it just to give the state another taxpayer.

But somehow my suffering would be irrelevant unless I had a proper excuse in the eyes of pro-life people.  My organs don't matter unless they're in servitude to a fetus.  Then suddenly they are the state's organs.  How dystopic.

Perhaps we can start requiring all men with two kidneys and two lungs to start involuntarily donating them to people who need replacements?  After all, the sick need those organs more than the healthy, and the state has an interest in intervening in your personal health to keep potential taxpayers alive.

You have to realize that as a woman, enjoying sex is frowned upon in some circles.  Children are God's natural punishment for this unspeakable act of hedonism.

[shelivesthedream]

Just two items of note that I don't think have come up so far:

1. There is a word already for people who are "pro-life" but don't seem to give a shit about anybody once they've been brought into the world. They are called (as an insult/criticism) "pro-birth".

2. This has been touched on but not elucidated sufficiently clearly, I think. There are actually two issues at stake in the "abortion debate" and for some reason America really fixates on the first. First, whether or not (or at what point) abortion is morally wrong. Second, which is where I think most of the debate in the UK is these days, whether (or to what extent) regulating abortions is within the proper realm of government/law.

There are lots of things which are viewed as morally wrong by a majority of people which are not viewed as proper for the government to legislate on - for example, adultery is not a crime. (Also white shoes after Labour Day - hat tip to Elle Woods.) And lots of things which are morally neutral which you can be punished for - for example, which side of the road you drive on.

You can believe abortions are wrong but still want them to be legal. I guess you could believe abortions were fine but want them to be illegal. Your view on the morality of abortion and your view on the legality of abortion are linked but not necessarily the same.

[nereo]

Just two items of note that I don't think have come up so far:

1. There is a word already for people who are "pro-life" but don't seem to give a shit about anybody once they've been brought into the world. They are called (as an insult/criticism) "pro-birth".

Another, far more fair term would be “anti-abortion”.

[shelivesthedream]

Just two items of note that I don't think have come up so far:

1. There is a word already for people who are "pro-life" but don't seem to give a shit about anybody once they've been brought into the world. They are called (as an insult/criticism) "pro-birth".

Another, far more fair term would be “anti-abortion”.

Like I said, "pro-birth" is an insult. I don't think "anti-abortion" is a very specific term, though. It tends to be used in quite a general way to cover both those who are specifically and only against abortion (insultingly called "pro-birth") and also those who are against abortion among other life-denying laws and practices (a broader "pro-life" view). Perhaps it's a cross-Atlantic linguistic difference? I have always heard anti-abortion and pro-life to be completely equivalent in the UK. I am not aware of a non-insulting equivalent to "pro-birth", though I would be delighted to find one.

[Morning Glory]

I read about an anti-abortion group in Finland (can't find the link now). Instead of protesting at clinics and trying to get legal restrictions on abortions, they advocate for things that actually made it easier for women to raise their babies. Things like paid family leave, universal healthcare, and subsidized childcare all reduce the number of abortions performed because they decrease the burden placed on the family by another child. Oh, and the family leave and healthcare also reduce maternal and infant mortality.  I'm really surprised that the evangelicals aren't calling their congresspeople right now to ask for these things /s

[OtherJen]

I read about an anti-abortion group in Finland (can't find the link now). Instead of protesting at clinics and trying to get legal restrictions on abortions, they advocate for things that actually made it easier for women to raise their babies. Things like paid family leave, universal healthcare, and subsidized childcare all reduce the number of abortions performed because they decrease the burden placed on the family by another child. Oh, and the family leave and healthcare also reduce maternal and infant mortality.  I'm really surprised that the evangelicals aren't calling their congresspeople right now to ask for these things /s

I have many Catholic friends who are strong advocates for those types of social programs. I consider them "pro-life" because the moniker actually fits.

[Kris]

I read about an anti-abortion group in Finland (can't find the link now). Instead of protesting at clinics and trying to get legal restrictions on abortions, they advocate for things that actually made it easier for women to raise their babies. Things like paid family leave, universal healthcare, and subsidized childcare all reduce the number of abortions performed because they decrease the burden placed on the family by another child. Oh, and the family leave and healthcare also reduce maternal and infant mortality.  I'm really surprised that the evangelicals aren't calling their congresspeople right now to ask for these things /s

I have many Catholic friends who are strong advocates for those types of social programs. I consider them "pro-life" because the moniker actually fits.

I have a few of those, too. In fact, the only self-avowed "pro-life" people I know whom I don't consider massive hypocrites are Catholic.

[MudPuppy]

Following the seven principles of Catholic social teaching means you support social programs, unions, green initiatives. Wild ass country we have when Catholics are the “liberals”

[nereo]

Following the seven principles of Catholic social teaching means you support social programs, unions, green initiatives. Wild ass country we have when Catholics are the “liberals”

Curiously the US has had exactly two Catholic presidents - JFK and Biden. Both viewed as left-of -center politicians  during their administrations.

[RetiredAt63]

Following the seven principles of Catholic social teaching means you support social programs, unions, green initiatives. Wild ass country we have when Catholics are the “liberals”

Curiously the US has had exactly two Catholic presidents - JFK and Biden. Both viewed as left-of -center politicians  during their administrations.

That is actually quite odd, when you think about what a large chunk of the US was originally the Louisiana purchase, from Catholic France.  All of Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma, plus parts of Minnesota, Texas, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, New Mexico and Wyoming.  (Isn't Google amazing?  I think I got them all.)
 

We've had lots of Catholic Prime Ministers.  Having a large French and Roman Catholic province be part of the founding of the country will do that.  Not sure they have been the most liberal, but I don't think any have been super conservative.  We have one now, come to think of it . . . . .   And his (Catholic educated by Jesuits)  father was the PM who said the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. 
It isn't a big deal, we sort of bounce around between mother tongue Protestant and langue maternal Catholique.  Although if the NDP ever manage to form a government we will have a Sikh instead, which would be new and different and interesting.  Like the first GG who was neither English or French, but of Ukrainian descent.

[LennStar]

Wait, embryos are citizens now!? When did that happen?

Legally, they're not.  However, if you consider them morally humans in the womb, then they reasonably should deserve citizen protections, as they will be citizens after birth.  We generally frown on governments supporting the killing of massive numbers of people in their countries.

But not killing massive numbers of people in their (the people's) countries. Very few people say the same for that case. I wonder why? In bith cases you don't even know them.

btw. What do you feel about all the subsidies to industries whose products kill people? Gun, cars, sugar...

I read about an anti-abortion group in Finland (can't find the link now). Instead of protesting at clinics and trying to get legal restrictions on abortions, they advocate for things that actually made it easier for women to raise their babies. Things like paid family leave, universal healthcare, and subsidized childcare all reduce the number of abortions performed because they decrease the burden placed on the family by another child. Oh, and the family leave and healthcare also reduce maternal and infant mortality.  I'm really surprised that the evangelicals aren't calling their congresspeople right now to ask for these things /s

Because that's fucking COMMUNISM!!!!!

Thank you, that was a superp pass!