Pro-lifers hate women and want to control their bodies. Pro-choicers hate babies and care about their own convenience more than the lives of children.

Or, alternatively, pro-lifers honestly, truly believe that fetuses are children, in which case it is obviously the proper choice to restrict abortion. Pro-choicers honestly, truly believe that personhood does not begin at conception, in which case there’s little room for abortion to be ethically wrong.

Until both sides start addressing each other’s actual arguments, this subject is not going to cool off. You won’t convince a pro-lifer who sees fetuses as children by wrongly claiming they want to control women. You won’t convince a pro-choicer who sees personhood as developing later by insisting that they are a godless baby-killer.

  • MetarightOP
    -4•1 year ago

    I don’t think you really got my point. If you truly, honestly believed that doing something resulted in the death of a child, of course you’d want to prevent anyone from doing it. We already have a law against murder, and surely you wouldn’t say “then they just shouldn’t murder people, but don’t try to impose their beliefs on me!”

    The point is that, from the perspective that fetuses are children, restricting abortion is the most logical and consistent approach. This is unavoidable, and you can’t change their minds if you don’t address this. The way to sway a pro-lifer, then, is to demonstrate that a fetus doesn’t have personhood.

    • anathema_device
      7•1 year ago

      @Metaright “The way to sway a pro-lifer, then, is to demonstrate that a fetus doesn’t have personhood.”

      No, first you have to persuade them that the life of the fetus bearer is worth something more than being an incubator.

      Which you will never do.

      People who are anti-abortion fanatics may or may not believe that a fetus is a baaaaaby, really. But what they really do not believe in is the personhood of the placenta owner.

      And until you find a way to convince them that a real, living, breathing human being with feelings and rights who already exists independently has rights, including that to life unburdened by an unwanted pregnancy for any reason, you won’t convince them of anything else.

    • Flaky_Fish69
      5•1 year ago

      So. Lets start with the discussion of what is actually murder. US and every state law defines murder as some variation of this:

      Murder occurs when one human being unlawfully kills another human being…At common law, murder was defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought…

      In short, “murder” is the unlawful killing of a human being. So, lets look at abortion as murder:

      • Is it lawful? yes. generally it is. with few exceptions.
      • is a fetus a human being? Scientifically, it’s not. you or any one else might believe it is. But it is not. It has more in common with a parasite. but equally, one might believe that domestic cats are aliens sent to dominate the world. Such belief is immaterial to reality and to fact, as it is a matter of religion/faith/philosophy and the US is a secular nation, not a theocracy. So no. It’s not yet a human.

      So no. It is not murder. it’s generally lawful, and within the scientific and medical community (you know, the people who study these things,) it is not yet a human. It’s a mere collection of cells on it’s way to becoming a human, sure. But it is not yet a human. It fails on both aspects.

      Furthermore,

      If you truly, honestly believed that doing something resulted in the death of a child, of course you’d want to prevent anyone from doing it.

      You’re right. Which is why it’s so very damnably curious that the majority of pro-lifers are also in such ardent opposition to contraceptives. Knowing as I do, that the single most effective way of reducing unwanted pregnancies is inexpensive (or, gasp free) and easy access to contraceptives, and that the majority of elective abortions will be prevented if one prevents unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

      Pro-Life hypocrisy at it’s finest, right there. But wait. there’s more.

      depending on who you ask, 12 weeks is the earliest a fetus can feel pain, with many saying 24 weeks. up until the '80’s it was was believed that newborns couldn’t feel pain, since their brain was undeveloped… and at 12 weeks, there’s no connections to the brain, and the brain isn’t quite developed enough to process that until 24 weeks. But even then, the fetus is not conscious- the necessary brain development isn’t even in place until the third trimester- about 28 weeks.

      Why is this a matter of hypocrisy? You see… for the first half of it’s existence, a fetus has about as much sentience, sapience and intelligence than a starfish. So if the argument is that is “murder”… then I would expect Pro-Lifers to be vegans. Interestingly, it seems the vast majority… are not. (to be clear, animal welfare and women’s reproductive rights are different issues and should be treated as different issues. However. if the ethics are “that’s a sentient being” apply to a collection of cells that can’t think, can’t feel… then those ethical considerations should also apply to animals.)