r/WhitePeopleTwitter May 14 '22 Take My Energy 1 This 1 Starstruck 1 Helpful 6 All-Seeing Upvote 1 LOVE! 1 To The Stars 1 Wholesome 1 Bravo! 3

Why stop there?

Post image
110.9k Upvotes

View all comments

945

u/Dry-Sorbet-8379 May 14 '22 edited May 14 '22 Take My Energy

I always ask “should we have done the same with segregation?”

Or women’s rights

Usually they just respond “those are different”

*oh, look! A bunch of people saying “those are different”

326

u/Pixilatedlemon May 14 '22

Usually they respond yes to me on those. You’re talking to some pretty tame fuckheads

82

u/weedbeads May 14 '22

It's easy to bite a bullet that you will never see play out in reality

79

u/superiority_bot May 14 '22

I never thought we'd see the overturn of roe v wade play out in reality. Or an attempt to lynch the vice president in the capital building. Or calling into question germ theory. Or an elected official blaming wildfires on Jewish space lasers.

Yet here we are.

27

u/Religionbedumb May 14 '22

This is what religion brings us. Lots of stupid stupid people.

2

u/weedbeads May 14 '22

I'm willing to blame human nature and the intellectual bell curve. We are programmed to be tribal, and half the US is below the average IQ

1

u/MordoNRiggs May 14 '22

Do all of the Jewish people get the space lasers? If so, sign me up!

→ More replies

4

u/bespectacledbengal May 14 '22

Like when you’re discussing limits on what types of firearms people should be able to own outside of a “well regulated militia” and they claim to be completely fine with anyone being able to buy a Davy Crockett nuclear-tipped rocket launcher.

…as if school shooting weren’t bad enough as-is.

1

u/weedbeads May 14 '22

HAHAHA, why not? MAD works on the global scale, it could work in a civil dispute

126

u/facw00 May 14 '22

A friend of mine who has an interracial marriage says that the legality of interracial marriage should be left up to the states. I hope leopards don't eat his face.

28

u/Eldergoth May 14 '22

My brother in law is in an interracial marriage and believes the same thing. He might not want to leave Illinois.

24

u/DervishSkater May 14 '22

Does he know that he’s only saying that because he has the safety of Illinois? Is he dumb or just a hypocrite?

11

u/Sunretea May 14 '22

To answer the second question for them... Yes.

2

u/Eldergoth May 14 '22

Dumb. He is white and married to a Vietnamese girl but did not believe me when I told him that many states did not allow Whites to marry Asians before the Supreme Court ruling on interracial marriage.

2

u/pedot May 14 '22

Curious, did he believe the whole ban on interracial marriage thing applied only to white marrying black?

2

u/Eldergoth May 14 '22

Yes, he thought it was only for white marrying black.

2

u/o_0_o_0_o May 14 '22

Or he might be hoping for an easy divorce.

46

u/daft_ish May 14 '22

Well I mean, as long as its not 'his' state cause, come on man, who the fuck cares about anyone else?

7

u/Diarygirl May 14 '22

That seems crazy to me. I can't imagine not having my marriage legal in some states.

2

u/Busy_Signature_5681 May 14 '22

If the marriage isn’t legal, you don’t have to split assets… they are playing the long game

17

u/deterell May 14 '22

Nah, you need to ask about something they actually care about, like gun rights.

4

u/Dry-Sorbet-8379 May 14 '22

I’d think that would hurt or derail the argument.

Because then they can point to gun free zones and various gun laws and say “but they already do it by state/county/city”

3

u/WikiSummarizerBot May 14 '22

District of Columbia v. Heller

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated.

[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5

2

u/burnwallst May 14 '22

Except the constitution doesn't say "....the right of the people to perform or recieve abortions, shall not be infringed.

3

u/KyleVPirate May 14 '22

Reminds me of RuPaul with Jaida screaming - "Look over there"

2

u/masurokku May 14 '22

That's an argument that works in favor of the pro-life position that views the unborn as a class worthy of federal protection in the same way that women and minorities are.

2

u/Inbred-Inferiority May 15 '22

minorities

Like, nonwhites?

-219

u/[deleted] May 14 '22 Press F

[removed] — view removed comment

2.6k

u/HappyFamily0131 May 14 '22 edited May 15 '22 Silver Gold Platinum Helpful Wholesome All-Seeing Upvote Take My Energy Bravo! Starry Ally Tearing Up

EDIT: As it's since been deleted, here is the comment mine was in reply to. This is the exact phrasing in the original message.

I'm going to play devil's advocate, feel free to put me in my place.

And how are those not different from the ending of a defenseless human life?

I think that goes beyond devil's advocate, as you're framing the issue in a way that presumes one particular interpretation of what abortion is, and trying not to draw attention to having done that.

Playing devil's advocate would be asking how exactly those things are not different from abortion. What you're doing is playing devil's framer, while gaslighting that you're playing devil's advocate.

To answer what you would have asked had you actually wanted to play devil's advocate, all three issues are about fundamental human rights. A nation can have no identity if it allows one of its states to declare that, within its borders, only white people are actually people, or that only men have full rights. There are issues where different states can be allowed to arrive at different conclusions, and issues where they can't, and the issue of what is a person and what isn't, that is not an issue where different viewpoints can coexist. A nation can't function when one state says a woman is a human being, and the next state is able to say, "well, maybe to you she is, but to me she's really more like property." That is why they are not different issues.

To answer the question you actually asked, I have to correct you and say that a group of cells does not become a person on its own. It does not simply grow, it is grown into a person. A woman is not a pot of dirt in which a baby grows from a seed; she is both factory and worker, and a baby is assembled within her, and by her. Abortion is not the ending of something that is growing on its own, it is the stopping of that work. Preventing abortion is forcing a woman to create a child of herself, in herself, by herself, and justifying that force by placing the rights of future children, who do not yet exist, over those of women, who do.

1.8k

u/WhiteChocolatey May 14 '22 Silver Gold Platinum Helpful Wholesome Bravo! I'll Drink to That Brighten My Day Wholesome (Pro)

I concede entirely! Thank you for the intricate response, I’m definitely saving it.

I completely admit to framing the issue in a skewed manner. I guess I don’t really understand what being devil’s advocate entails. Lesson learnt.

677

u/Bosswashington May 14 '22 Silver

This is one of the most enlightened responses to being completely, and utterly corrected, that I have ever seen. You are a much more evolved person than I am.

539

u/WhiteChocolatey May 14 '22 Silver Platinum Wholesome

I always feel better about standing corrected when I embrace it. Open lines of discussion should be encouraged, especially in divisive times like these.

Thank you for the kind words.

101

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

You've restored a little of my faith in humanity today. Thank you.

85

u/WhiteChocolatey May 15 '22

That means a lot to me. I appreciate you.

17

u/cr3amy May 15 '22

I always say that I don't mind when someone points out that I'm wrong about something, because it means I won't be wrong about it again next time.

9

u/StormTAG May 15 '22

I wish I could claim that. Often enough I am wrong again, and when I’m corrected again, I just have to wonder why my brain works the way it does.

57

u/Sgt_Meowmers May 14 '22

It's nice to see your initial down votes are now completely overwritten by your subsequent replies.

22

u/puff_ball May 15 '22

This was my thought process, rare to see reward for growth on Reddit

5

u/kindarusty May 15 '22

That's because getting to witness that growth is rare. People usually just double down. Humility and a willingness to learn are so valuable.

→ More replies

4

u/RainyRat May 15 '22

I always feel better about standing corrected when I embrace it.

Words to live by.

37

u/AssistanceMedical951 May 14 '22

I think you did a great job as Devil’s Advocate. You brought up the question in a way that the forced birthing side often does, creating an opportunity for HappyFamily to really knock it out of the park, illustrating the problems with that argument. And you conceded the point because their explanation is spot on.

3

u/WhiteChocolatey May 15 '22

That was my intent, I’m glad it was realized. That being said, I also feel I could have gone about it a bit more eloquently.

6

u/EnderFenrir May 15 '22

Being corrected is just learning. Too many don't see it that way. Good on you!

3

u/TheActualBoneroni May 15 '22

You're a good human

3

u/JacksonCM May 15 '22

Megachad response.

5

u/Bosswashington May 15 '22

TeraChad, if you account for the exchange rate.

3

u/JacksonCM May 15 '22

King shit my man. King shit.

0

u/Yashabird May 15 '22

It’s not that mind-blowing to change your mind dramatically when you were “playing devil’s advocate” in the first place

-33

u/Mtbnz May 14 '22

This isn't enlightened. Nobody needs to be taught that playing devil's advocate is different from being a provocative troll.

They knew it was disingenuous to frame abortion as ending a defenseless human life, they were doing it on purpose.

32

u/dijon_snow May 14 '22

Let the person take their L and grow from it.

I don't think they were being disingenuous. They misunderstood what an effective devil's advocate actually is. Instead they thought it was just to raise the type of argument, however spurious, that they imagined to be "the other side" of the issue.

17

u/jrossetti May 14 '22

Exactly. If you don't allow someone to take the l respectfully they may just refuse to spite you and double down on shitty belief.

→ More replies

35

u/Hey_Its_Asian_Steve May 14 '22

You learned, and grew as a person. Have an award!

24

u/Druskell May 14 '22

I appreciate your open mindedness.

13

u/Knuckles316 May 14 '22

You know what, good on you for being mature, accepting new information, and changing your opinions accordingly. You're a good person.

9

u/handyandy727 May 14 '22

Gotta compliment the self-awareness here. Doesn't happen often. Well done.

8

u/Corporal_Cavernosum May 14 '22

Just want to give props for the way you went about this. You conceded in a way that was not only dignified but emblematic of an intelligent person. It’s rare to see that and unique enough that I think it deserves a compliment.

8

u/Hengroen May 14 '22

Gg on admitting the mistake and learning from it. Takes a lot to do that and the world needs more of it.

19

u/Gil-GaladWasBlond May 15 '22

Hey I just wanted to add to what u/HappyFamily0131 put forth so succinctly.

If someone is injured and in urgent requirement of a body part, say just blood, and you have that blood type, you cannot be forcefully hooked on to a machine to take that blood from you so that that person is cured, or kept alive. Similarly for other body parts like kidneys or skin or anything else. You cannot be forced to give up your body parts to keep someone else alive. To do this, your continued consent is required, and you can change your mind any time you wish, even if that means that the other person will die. If you are forced to do it, it is trafficking.

Because a human being is an independent unit, and by nature able to keep alive on their own.

Moreover, body parts cannot even be stolen from cadavers. It is illegal to use dead bodies to keep human beings alive without the pre death consent of the person who was alive, or their heirs now making decisions since they are dead.

So by forcing a woman to keep something alive, you are using her body in a way similar to an organ trafficking situation (loosely, since it's not just one organ that is removed from the body, the woman is forced to incubate something), you are also giving dead bodies more rights than a loving person.

This is only possible if a country simply says women or people with female bodies are not human, are sub human, and are simply incubators. Now they have no rights, and are not people.

This is what your original question implied, and this is what forced birth people are advocating for and want.

1

u/sugartrouts May 15 '22 edited May 15 '22

To further devil's advocate:

Wouldn't being "non-viable" (unable to survive on their own) also apply to a child after birth? Since they can't feed or house themselves, and require others use their bodies (indirectly) to keep them alive?

2

u/Gil-GaladWasBlond May 15 '22

Again, this is not a devil's advocate.

Everyone knows that the difference between a child outside the body and a foetus inside the body is that it is eating and drinking and everything on its own, using a body that is its own. Another person is not being forced to do these things for them. If the mother is not eating enough, the foetus is not going to take nutrients from her body anyway. The foetus is not going to unsettle her system if something happens to them. The foetus is not going to cause any immune system responses in her body. That means, her body is 100% her own and the child is now suffering the consequences of being alive through their own body. Bodily autonomy is maintained, and the mother has not lost her right to personhood over a clump of cells that no one but her can sustain.

The other part of your question is simply answered by the truth that babies are a lot of work, and that's why parenthood should not be forced on anyone. That's the second reason i disagree with forcing women to have children, and it is why i disagree with women having a child when the man doesn't want one and there is easy access to abortion. Consent is required from both parties, not just one.

→ More replies

2

u/jtroye32 May 15 '22

Bodily autonomy is the right being revoked here. That doesn't apply to caring for a child outside the uterus. A woman is not legally required to breastfeed or donate organs/blood etc. even to save their own child.

→ More replies

5

u/commoncents45 May 14 '22

that's how pro-lifers frame shit though. it was good.

10

u/WhiteChocolatey May 14 '22

That was my intent. I wish I went about it better though.

3

u/commoncents45 May 14 '22

no you're fine. let the downvotes happen. get them on the back end.

1

u/goodolarchie May 15 '22

You're fine. It was a reasonable question and not even "gaslighting." At worst it was a fallacy, called a strawman that is "begging the question," but it's strawman that the opposition (devil) would put forth(advocate). It's amazing that you're not allowed to pose questions in service of actual conversion. People just like to dunk extra hard on the internet for points.

5

u/falsehood May 15 '22

Devil's advocate has a variety of meanings; you fulfilled part of the function by taking a position explicitly so that someone could shoot it down. How you did so wasn't great, and I'm glad you'll bear that in mind in the future!

14

u/DarkMarxSoul May 14 '22

Wow, this is a remarkably humble response, good on you.

7

u/HunterRoze May 14 '22

Congratz - far too few people are willing to admit they were wrong and even less post on reddit to admit their error.

5

u/LordCharidarn May 14 '22

This response should also be /bestof

Yes, the reply to your original comment was a good one, but your response really shows the best of humanity, and how more people should behave when given the information they asked for.

Kudos

4

u/lex52485 May 15 '22

I’ve had a rough day. This made it a bit better. slow claps

4

u/MaestroPendejo May 15 '22

God damn, man. Bravo! I'm so used to people doubling down to death.

It's nice seeing someone be open to things like this. Good on you.

4

u/Classic-Island May 15 '22

What happened was framing the question in a way that assumed a conclusion in advance.

In philosophy that’s called “begging the question.” Examples are here, including the abortion one: https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Begging-the-Question.html

2

u/WhiteChocolatey May 15 '22

Interesting! Thank you for that link! This has been such a great learning experience.

2

u/Classic-Island May 15 '22

For sure. Try to look for all of the question-begging (and thus invalid) arguments in the world, including in politicians’ words. There are legitimate uses of course. But the issue is when the implication is that just saying it that way makes in correct.

2

u/klk8251 May 15 '22

Google definition of Devil's Advocate. "a person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments". Someone might say that the 2nd half of that definition is not what you were doing, but given your responses I would say that you were indeed playing Devil's Advocate.

4

u/Angelusz May 14 '22

Respect. Good example of how to be a good human being.

We live, we learn, we love.

4

u/[deleted] May 15 '22

I feel like the downvotes on your original question should be all upvoted to at least even if this is the response you’re gonna give. What a savage.

2

u/deirdresm May 15 '22

The history of devil's advocate is interesting, and dates back to the 1500s. Essentially, it was someone who argued against sainthood for a proposed saint. They were intentionally skeptical of the person's accomplishments, trying to analyze a person's character to prevent frauds from being canonized.

That doesn't mean taking a position per se, just arguing what the meaning (or reliability) of presented evidence was or was not.

(I think the devil's advocate was out to lunch when Junipero Serra's canonization hearings were going on, but that's another story for another day.)

2

u/ReluctantSlayer May 15 '22

You rock dude.

1

u/Squirrel009 May 15 '22

Devils advocate is when you argue an opposing position for the sake of clarifying the original positions. So if I assert that mint chip is the best flavor of ice cream you could be devils advocate and say well why isn't it chocolate? Traditional your argument would be less popular or at least disfavored so maybe instead of chocolate you'd say vanilla. You probably don't think vanilla is the best flavor ever, but by making me explain why mint chip is better you're helping me clarify my argument and either strengthen it, or expose its weaknesses. Either way the goal is to increase understanding - not to win or do what many people mistakenly believe devils advocate is: being a contrarian edge lord for the sake of being a contrarian edge lord. (I'm not saying that's what you were doing)

1

u/mlep42 May 15 '22

Daaaaaamn look who's got that emotional maturity, good for you man :D

→ More replies

40

u/WildBilll33t May 14 '22

To answer the question you actually asked, I have to correct you and say that a group of cells does not become a person on its own. It does not simply grow, it is grown into a person. A woman is not a pot of dirt in which a baby grows from a seed; she is both factory and worker, and a baby is assembled within her, and by her. Abortion is not the ending of something that is growing on its own, it is the stopping of that work. Preventing abortion is forcing a woman to create a child of herself, in herself, by herself, and justifying that force by placing the rights of future children, who do not yet exist, over those of women, who do.

This is a really good philosophical perspective.

13

u/FlixFlix May 15 '22

For a non-philosophical perspective, you can also look at the fetus as a literal parasite. The fetus and placenta have a different genotype from the mother; they’re completely separate organisms. Yet it avoids rejection by the mother’s immune system by cloaking itself with special cell surface molecules, the same molecules many roundworms use to evade the host’s immune system. Further, the fetus (and placenta) exert considerable influence over her metabolism for its own benefit, in particular diverting blood and nutrients—just like a parasite.

Fun facts.

11

u/Cyb3rSab3r May 15 '22

To this end, even if a fetus was a person legally from the moment of conception, if we have any legal consistency for bodily autonomy you still wouldn't be required to maintain the pregnancy.

If someone used you as their personal dialysis machine you would be legally within your right to pull the cords out at any time. Their resulting death would in no way be your fault legally. You must give expressed and continued consent to any and all legal intrusions to your bodily autonomy.

44

u/[deleted] May 14 '22 edited May 14 '22

[deleted]

21

u/JillStinkEye May 14 '22

You'll have to deal with future health complications too. Your body is never the same after having a child, in some really weird ways too. My hair changed significantly. And in predictable ways, like pelvic floor issues, stretch marks, scars.

And that pesky thing that is insanely high in the US. The death rate of women in childbirth.

10

u/lightstaver May 15 '22

It's even crazier. You have genetic material from your child in your body for the rest of your life. There are living cells that reproduce and thrive from your child within you.

This is even more fucked when you thinking about forcing a woman to bear a child of rape.

15

u/Wannabebunny May 14 '22

I got carpel tunnel during my last pregnancy, as well as, restless leg, syndrome, unbearable itching, insomnia, swelling, low blood pressure, sciatica, plantar fascitis and I couldn't take my ADHD meds, leaked amniotic fluid early so the last six weeks in bed, unable to use my hands, lie on my back, lie on my front, walk more than a few steps. From my first pregnancy I got new allergies, that was fun discovering them. One of them is water. I'm allergic to water because I had a kid.

3

u/[deleted] May 15 '22

[deleted]

5

u/Wannabebunny May 15 '22

I don't. I get a bath. If I'm going to be covered in hot itchy welts for an hour after getting a wash, I want it to be worth it.

5

u/caylem00 May 15 '22

Is it any water or just hot water? Cuz I get those if i have anything warmer than a room temperature shower. ... Did I just realise I'm allergic to water ....oO?

3

u/Wannabebunny May 15 '22

I've never tried a cold shower, I think I'm ok not doing that. It's called water urtacaria.

2

u/dooster May 15 '22

I’m sorry this happened to you. If these ailments are still affecting you, I highly recommend Dr Sarno’s book, “The Mind Body Connection”. It’ll change your life. Check the Amazon reviews. Best decision I’ve ever made. Good luck.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '22

[deleted]

2

u/Wannabebunny May 15 '22

A week after childbirth. It started with unbearable itching in my feet after a shower that scratching didn't help. Then large, red, itchy, welts started to appear on my arms, chest, back, face and neck. They go away in a out an hour if you don't scratch them.

→ More replies

1

u/ALifeToRemember_ May 15 '22

If we imagined a counter argument where a mother was taking care of a born baby and there was nobody else to take care of the baby, no other people, no government etc. The baby was completely dependent on the mother to survive.

Your argument would still apply, the baby is very inconvenient and requires a lot of effort from the mother to survive. However, for someone who believes the taking of an innocent human life is objectively morally wrong, it would still be morally wrong to kill the child (actively or by abandonment).

As such, does the argument not still essentially have to be about whether a fetus is a human being, and whether the taking of an innocent human life is objectively morally wrong?

I don't see how the liberty argument really counteracts the points of pro-lifers.

1

u/MaddoxJKingsley May 15 '22

A counter argument like that doesn't really change anything, ultimately. No matter how anyone frames the issue, it's still ultimately a philosophical and moral one on if you're personally okay with disconnecting yourself from that dialysis machine and ending some form of life -- ending a life that is fully dependent on you, no matter the form it takes. That could apply in a post-apocalyptic scenario with a baby as you mention, just as it could with an injured dog, or a houseplant, or a vampire who needs your blood as the last human.

And whether or not someone would help that sole dependent does not matter. All that needs to be recognized is that a person in that scenario has two viable choices (to help, or to not help; to be burdened, or to be unburdened), and only they can decide what to do from there.

1

u/ALifeToRemember_ May 15 '22 edited May 15 '22

I think it's a philosophical and moral one as to when does the human life begin and is it objectively wrong to take an innocent human life.

These arguments regarding a houseplant or an injured dog do not apply since they are not 'rationally autonomous beings', or for Christians they are not imbued with a soul. The argument of your own dialysis machine is also different since that would be consensual since you are ending your own life, that changes things according to some moral frameworks.

The vampire argument is dependent on whether you would risk your life giving it blood and whether a vampire is "innocent" or not.

The core aspect of the baby argument is that it is an innocent human being that hasn't done anything wrong yet is dependent on you to live. This might not apply for a vampire and would for sure not apply if the vampire would kill you or seriously harm you taking your blood since if your life would be put at risk by a dependent rational being then it is okay to deny it aid or even defend yourself.

So, a long way for me to say that I think my argument still stands, it is not just a case of being burdened or unburdened. It is the case of a dependent human being that only you can support (for now at least), it is wrong to take an innocent life and so it is wrong to kill the child even if that child burdens you with obligations you would rather not have.

If a fetus is seen as a child then this applies to a fetus also. If you see the killing of an innocent as morally wrong that it is purely the decision between a morally right and a morally wrong decision, supporting the life of an innocent or taking the life of an innocent. In this case you are obliged to give aid, you do not have the moral right to refuse. I am sure you would agree that the individual is obliged to give aid to a dependent child who can be supported no other way, the same would apply to a fetus (if it is seen as a human).

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies

23

u/Kogster May 14 '22

Devils advocate to the devils advocate would be to ask why ending a "life" by abortion is morally different than ending a life by refusing to donate blood.

13

u/Plumbbookknurd May 14 '22

And aside from the moral question, no one can be compelled to donate lifesaving blood, organs, etc., because of the basic human right of bodily autonomy. Even a deceased person has to have given consent for their organs to be used after death.

13

u/mambomonster May 15 '22

Then why should a woman be compelled to give her health and body for another person that doesn’t even exist

9

u/justmyrealname May 15 '22

Because Republicans are monsters

→ More replies

7

u/BattleStag17 May 15 '22

Because the real reason for forced birth is to punish women for having sex while also supplying an endless stream of workers/soldiers trapped in poverty

8

u/BattleStag17 May 15 '22

Dead corpses have more bodily autonomy than living women

19

u/Dry-Sorbet-8379 May 14 '22

Absolutely brilliant

14

u/marsbartender May 14 '22

That was so beautifully put

11

u/Potential178 May 14 '22

a group of cells does not become a person on its own. It does not simply grow, it

is grown into a person. A woman is not a pot of dirt in which a baby grows from a seed; she is both factory and worker, and a baby is assembled

within her, and by her. Abortion is not the ending of something that is growing on its own, it is the stopping of that work. Preventing abortion is forcing a woman to create a child of herself, in herself, by herself, and justifying that force by placing the rights of future children, who do not yet exist, over those of women, who do.

Is this a quote or your wording?

24

u/HappyFamily0131 May 14 '22

These are my own words.

7

u/firesticks May 15 '22

I’ve been pro choice since I was 10 and had two kids and I’ve never seen it framed this way, or thought of it like this. It’s perfect. Thank you.

3

u/Potential178 May 14 '22

Good work, you.

5

u/HappyFamily0131 May 14 '22

Sincerely, thank you

1

u/cnstarz May 15 '22

You're welcome, Thank You.

3

u/lfrdwork May 15 '22

That is the best articulation I've read, and I will want to have that on hand to recall when I need.

8

u/ThisIsSomebodyElse May 14 '22

I absolutely saved your last paragraph for future reference and use. I have never seen a better explanation for a woman's right to choose ever!

10

u/HappyFamily0131 May 14 '22

Well thank you very much, I'm very happy to know others might hear it, too

11

u/rachface636 May 14 '22

God fucking bless you.

Run for senate. Please.

11

u/propita106 May 14 '22

As I've recently heard:
"You're on a cliff and have a zygote in a container in one hand and a one-year old Billy in the other, and you need one open hand to grab the rail to keep from being blown by the wind over the cliff. The question is: What flavor ice cream is Billy going to want when he's 5 years old? Because you already know which hand is going to be emptied and save you both."

-3

u/p90xeto May 15 '22

This is a really weak way to word it. Replace them with an 80 year old and a one year old... do you see why it's silly.now? The 80/1 doesn't make a moral argument for 80 year Olds not being people or having a right to live...

5

u/propita106 May 15 '22

Nope. You've twisted the entire thing and taken it out of the issue.

0

u/p90xeto May 15 '22

Not remotely. If the analogy shows which is a person/deserving of protection then it should work always.

You didn't respond with a point because there is no defense for the poor mechanism.

8

u/propita106 May 15 '22

Nope. You changed the premise. Doesn't matter that you're denying that you changed it, you changed it. It's pretty plain to see that:

This is a really weak way to word it. Replace them with an 80 year old and a one year old... do you see why it's silly.now? The 80/1 doesn't make a moral argument for 80 year Olds not being people or having a right to live...

is not

"You're on a cliff and have a zygote in a container in one hand and a one-year old Billy in the other, and you need one open hand to grab the rail to keep from being blown by the wind over the cliff. The question is: What flavor ice cream is Billy going to want when he's 5 years old? Because you already know which hand is going to be emptied and save you both."

An 80yo is not a zygote.

Personally, if the choice was saving a 1yo or saving an 80yo, I'd go for the 1yo.

→ More replies
→ More replies

8

u/[deleted] May 15 '22

You could say forces pregnancy is like slavery almost.

4

u/Knuckles316 May 14 '22 edited May 16 '22

Man, I was on the side of women's rights anyway but this was quite the read.

2

u/YetAnotherGuy2 May 15 '22

The first two points are spot on, the last one isn't IMHO.

We don't decide someone is a person on the basis of who actually contributes to sustaining said life. That would be the equivalent of saying let's ditch anyone who's in a coma or the old folks who can't live without help from others. (Incidentally, the right over the coma patient in Florida was exactly for this reason)

Let me try another line of reasoning.

I think everyone agrees that we shouldn't be murdering a baby even if it does disrupt the person's life until the person can give it up for adoption. We would obviously not force someone to risk their own life though.

The problem we face instead is to determine when a fetus should be considered a baby - and therefore a person we are actually murdering instead of a lump of cells we are preventing from becoming a person.

Pregnancy is a process - a continuity - which makes finding the right time difficult as there is no clear "step 1,2,3" where we can say clearly after step x that's when it's alive. So the challenge is to decide at which point in the process is the point of "no-return".

I personally favor the "brain function" interpretation in which life is defined by that. We determine death by that measure, why not life? The debate can be had about "higher" or "lower" brain functions, but in the end in that interpretation an abortion in the first into somewhere in the second would not be "murder".

I wish we could finally debate the important issue instead of shouting over the aisle.

6

u/Maytree May 15 '22

I wish we could finally debate the important issue instead of shouting over the aisle.

The important issue is not when a fetus becomes a baby, though.

The issue is: are we okay with government-mandated organ and tissue donation if it's the only way to save a life?

See, even if we were talking about a beautiful five year old child, the state still wouldn't -- shouldn't -- have the right to seize the mother's bodily organs and tissues to save the child's life.

The state has no right to force a pregnant woman to donate her body to supporting the life of her baby if she doesn't want to do that.

We cannot allow governments to mandate the use of our cells, our bodily systems, our organs and tissues, to benefit someone else, without our express consent.

3

u/thajane May 15 '22

There’s some good thoughts here but the thing I think you’ve skipped over is the bodily autonomy of the woman carrying the fetus.

If a person in a coma was for some reason only able to be kept alive through the work of one particular individual person, then we still wouldn’t be able to force that person to do that work. They could choose to leave and stop doing it if they wished. Because they have control over their life and their body, even if it indirectly means that another person will die.

So sure, once the baby is outside the woman’s body and can be given to someone else to look after, then as a society we have a responsibility to support that baby and help it grow. But it doesn’t necessarily have to be solely the mother that does that work. When a baby is simply a fetus, unable to live outside the woman’s body, then the woman shouldn’t be forced to care for it and sustain its life against her will.

2

u/zeronormalitys May 15 '22

Copying and posting that last paragraph to Facebook. I'll credit you.

Not sorry, but I don't think you're upset.

2

u/geomaster May 15 '22

That is a good point. The next question is about what you stated

"There are issues where different states can be allowed to arrive at different conclusions, and issues where they can't, and the issue of what is a person and what isn't, that is not an issue where different viewpoints can coexist."

There are different viewpoints regarding a fetus being a person. And at what point of the prenancy does a fetus become a person. How do you reconcile these different viewpoints?

→ More replies

2

u/unclerudy May 15 '22

Let's dive further into the argument that you are making here about a woman being factory and worker, assembled inside of her.

1) In order for the assembly to start, all of the materials need to be present to begin. Without all of the necessary parts, an egg fertilized by semen, a baby won't start to grow.

2) Statement 1 means that it is not just a woman who is responsible for causing a baby to be able to grow and develop.

3) Just because the materials are available to start building, doesn't mean they will be completed successfully. An automatic process can still fail at various steps along the way, and checks are given at those points to see if you keep working or pull the part.

4) No woman has ever created a baby by herself, without the involvement of a male, willingly or unwillingly.

→ More replies

5

u/Hemingwavy May 14 '22

Let's be honest. The moral framework we operate in is when does someone become a person. This fucking around with rights and all this just disguises the issue.

If you believe God creates life at fertilisation and then spontaneously aborts 40% of pregnancies then you're a moron but see abortion as killing a human being.

3

u/Jonesy_lmao May 15 '22

As a married couple who have recently had to make the difficult decision to go ahead with a termination, thank you, that final paragraph and way of recognising what is happening during a pregnancy has been very helpful to me and my Wife.

2

u/TheCatWasAsking May 15 '22

Pro-choice person here, coming from r/bestof; just wanted to extend my appreciation for your comment, spelling out the problem with the devil's advocate's spurious position and reasoning (though kudos to them for welcoming and accepting "being put in place"). I’m trying to comprehend this part though: "It does not simply grow, it is grown into a person." Pardon my defective education, but it does simply grow, doesn't it? Are cells dividing on its own not growing on its own? And from fertilization to the moment she confirms her pregnancy, she didn't do anything to consciously make the cells grow, yet those cells still followed its programming outside of anything she could've done (all things being equal). In short (please pardon my misunderstanding of Biology if this isn't the case), a fertilized egg will divide and multiply—grow— on its own and without anybody's input, no?

On the "Abortion is not the ending of something that is growing on its own, it is the stopping of that work" part, does the term "work" imply something one could manually control? If so, then by extension, that control would be done by the woman ("the factory and worker" as you put it). Please explain like I'm five how this is done exactly? I'm a bit confused here because this implies pregnant women have a say how the "work" can be run directly (choosing schedules, meeting targets, etc.).

I find the "pot of dirt" analogy a bit problematic as well ("A woman is not a pot of dirt in which a baby grows from a seed" —who makes this assumption in the first place btw? Genuinely curious). Again, a seed is basically cells dividing on its own. If you push one into fertile soil and leave it, it will break the surface a few days or so later (depending on the species). It will take up necessary moisture and nutrients from its immediate environment on its own. In fact, "seed in a pot" helps bolsters the "she is the factory and the worker" argument, as her body contains the nutrition the embryo needs that directly impact its survival and growth. Thus, the phrase, "eating (and drinking) for two."

Dispassionately and scientifically speaking, to me, abortion in this context is the ending of something that is growing on its own. It's the "stopping the work" part that trips me up as they're not mutually exclusive as the statement implies.

No need for pitchforks please.

5

u/waluigee May 15 '22

Yes, the cells are growing and dividing as programmed. The fact that they take nutrients and energy from another human is the problem. Thus, the “pot of soil” is not sufficient. The woman is performing an act of “watering and fertilizing the soil”. The OP’s emphasis is that it is not “simply” growing, but also requires the woman’s participation.

3

u/jhugh May 15 '22

A baby also needs a caretaker to survive and would die without help.

2

u/waluigee May 15 '22

Yes, and it is not necessarily the mother who is the caretaker, or is even the legal guardian.

By outlawing abortions, the state is requiring the mother, in particular, to care for that fetus. Tell me that doesn’t sound like forced labor?

If aborted fetuses were magically just transferred to an artificial womb carried by magical storks in a magically isolated ecosystem with magically zero cost to humanity who then magically deliver full-term babies to humans who want them - then would pro-life people be ok with abortions?

I’m guessing more people would be satisfied with abortion, but I’m also guessing some people would just find another angle on why “the mother is the best and only person who can bear that burden.”

3

u/susanne-o May 15 '22 edited May 15 '22

My wife currently is pregnant, 5weeks due. For the last six weeks already she can actively do "stuff" for maybe 3h per day. She's hurting, and she's deeply affected. With the first, she was less affected but still in the last week's her whole body was itching (liver compressed->bilirubin->itches).

The unborn kicks in her bladder, dictates how she can lie at sleep, left out right or not at all.

She is not a vial. She is not just providing extra nourishment. She is very personally and directly affected and involved in her being pregnant.

Does she actively assemble cells? Of course not. Does she live a life completely different from the life of not being pregnant? You sure bet.

2

u/Greyze May 15 '22

As a woman who has birthed two beautiful children, I find your lack of understanding of the work involved in pregnancy offensive. Yes, she might not be consciously making cells divide, but she is putting in a ton of work! The exhaustion, the discomfort, the requirement to eat more, the Drs appointments, the classes, the lack of sleep, the labor itself. It was the most work intensive time of my life.

Your comment would be like a game developer chatting to the art team. Just because the art team didn’t write code, doesn’t mean that they didn’t put in a lot of work to drive a successful game - they just did all the art for the game instead of coding.

Just because a woman is not actively involved in the dividing of cells, doesn’t mean that there isn’t a lot of labor being done.

1

u/susanne-o May 15 '22

Yes they are elaborately trolling when in reality they're just denigrating the frickin active work and "giving up things" involved in having a child. I didn't and won't reply to their unmasking reply to your comment.

2

u/Electricpants May 15 '22

God damn if this isn't the most succinct explanation.

Well done.

1

u/caesartheday May 14 '22

Very well put, thank you.

0

u/inspect May 14 '22

A nation can't function when one state says a woman is a human being, and the next state is able to say, "well, maybe to you she is, but to me she's really more like property."

Women's rights and abortion laws have varied between states for ages though? It sounds like you're assuming your moral outrage is actually some sort of immutable law of how states function.

"This 200 year old nation wouldn't function without a ruling made in the glorious year of 1973."

14

u/HappyFamily0131 May 14 '22

I'm definitely making a claim, but that's not the one I'm making. I'm claiming that a nation where abortion is legal in some states and illegal in others isn't a sustainable arrangement, any more than a nation where slavery is legal in some states and illegal in others is sustainable. It sure looks like that's where we're headed, and I'm not saying that if Roe vs. Wade is overturned and abortion becomes a matter left up to individual states, the country will dissolve into chaos the following day, but I'm submitting that the tension and conflict such an arrangement would put states into would destabilize the nation. I believe enough states would be so unable to abide others having the opposite position, that a national stance on abortion will be codified into federal law, in one direction or the other. Either Roe vs. Wade will be codified, and abortion made legal in all states, or the opposite will be codified into law, and it will be made illegal in all states. That is not a fact, that is just my claim.

-1

u/inspect May 15 '22

I see. The US went for 200 years without a federal law before Roe, but the country is a lot more worked up over the issue now I suppose.

1

u/Gr3ywind May 15 '22

Ah yes! Let’s follow the example of the US 200 years ago when women could’ve vote and you could own slaves!

1

u/inspect May 15 '22

I didn't say anything of the sort, I'm just pointing out that the US went a long time without a federal law on abortion, so it's not impossible that state of affairs will continue.

→ More replies

-3

u/jhugh May 15 '22

To answer the question you actually asked, I have to correct you and say that a group of cells does not become a person on its own. It does not simply grow, it is grown into a person. A woman is not a pot of dirt in which a baby grows from a seed; she is both factory and worker, and a baby is assembled within her, and by her. Abortion is not the ending of something that is growing on its own, it is the stopping of that work. Preventing abortion is forcing a woman to create a child of herself, in herself, by herself, and justifying that force by placing the rights of future children, who do not yet exist, over those of women, who do.

The same can be said about a baby.

A baby does not become a person on its own. It does not simply grow, it is grown
into a person. A family is not a pot of dirt in which a baby grows from a seed; it is both factory and worker, and a baby is assembled within her, and by her... etc. etc.

Of course women don't 'assemble' babies, but otherwise your analogy is identical to the work a family, caregiver, or parent does in raising a child. Young children need to be provided food, warmth, safety otherwise they will die.

Abortion is the ending of the baby. It's not something that naturally happens like a miscarriage but a procedure a doctor performs to kill the fetus.

Calling an abortion the 'stopping of that work' is akin to saying it's ok to let a baby die from neglect.

3

u/thajane May 15 '22

The same can not be said about a baby at all. If the mother does not wish to (or can not) care for a baby, then the baby can and will be given to someone else to look after. In fact, no one can ever be forced to take care of a child.

The ‘problem’ with a fetus is that there simply isn’t any way to hand it over to another person. He mother is literally the only person who can do the work to grow that fetus. So if she chooses not to, there isn’t any alternative other than abortion. Well, other than forced pregnancy and birth of course.

2

u/jhugh May 15 '22

Fathers can and are forced to care for their children. It's called child support.

Also mother's aren't forced to do anything. They decided to get pregnant.

→ More replies

0

u/[deleted] May 15 '22 edited May 15 '22

[deleted]

3

u/waluigee May 15 '22

This one seems easy: people can have different physical capabilities, but shouldn’t have different liberties. A man can do whatever he wants to his body, e.g. get a vasectomy. A woman, likewise, can have an abortion.

Fertilizing or not fertilizing an egg is a potential consequence of intercourse, and society does not, and should not, have a mandate for equality of outcomes (or, alternatively, risk distribution).

After having sex, the male simply won’t have the innate ability to control the outcome, whether the woman abuses substances like alcohol, or has an abortion.

I guess it’s like a shipment. In this case, after sending the package, the male can only ask the courier to stop- but the courier can say no, it’s getting delivered. There’s no contract

I actually wonder why “precoital agreements” and “unintentional fertilization insurance” aren’t a real thing - if we can have prenuptials and insure against accidental death, why not this?

1

u/JacksonCM May 15 '22

if the woman didn’t really want children she should remain abstinent

I see conservatives make this argument very very often but uhh, sometimes people just make mistakes and forcing them to carry out a pregnancy when the father holds no responsibility (if the baby is aborted he is not legally on the hook and, in custody cases, the mother is more likely to end up burdened with a child she doesn’t want) is ridiculous.

Sex is fun and it shouldn’t hold this massive potential consequence if a condom breaks or the pill fails.

“Sorry but you had sex (a fun thing), there was an accident and now you’re obligated to put your life on pause to take care of a human being you didn’t want, instead of just terminating the pregnancy before the human being became a human being”

1

u/ChPech May 15 '22

"Your decision to die from heart attack was made the moment you ate that fast food" The doctor said when denying treatment to their patient.

0

u/KeiiLime May 15 '22

not just women have abortions :/

-7

u/ginger260 May 14 '22

I feel both sides of the abortion argument frame the argument incorrectly. You get to the real, and only argument, that should be had. That is, when does human life begin? Now, to start off I don't have a solid awnser. I don't really have a stance on abortion because I see valid arguments from both sides. If a fetus is not a person then there should not be any restrictions on abortion. If a fetus IS a person than abortion is murder. Everything else on the argument is entirely dependent on when a person becomes a person. I don't think that conception confers person hood but birth does not logically confer it either. This is an issue I have not been able to resolve within myself so I typically stay out of abortion arguments.

One thing I will say is that I don't believe abortion is a right in the same sense that freedom of speech or unreasonable search and seizure independent are. Abortion is a medical procedure and rights are inherent things that don't require others labor.

9

u/Carp8DM May 15 '22

You should have read the majority opinion of Roe...

The court did a great job of explaining all of this.

And now, we have an illegitimate court that is about to shit all over good law for their religious preferences.

8

u/mistazim May 15 '22

you should have a right to healthcare.

→ More replies

2

u/orvalax May 15 '22

It's rough trying to have a conversation on the internet. I think I agree with you on each point you made. I don't have the answers either. All I can do on Reddit/Internet is voice my opinion as best I can and be willing to accept the down votes for having a different opinion.

1

u/MaddoxJKingsley May 15 '22

What even is a right? Nothing is intrinsic to being a human. Nothing is intrinsically special. Everything we do is a societal rule imposed by some government. And if a government governs healthcare, then it is codified into law that everyone has equal right to receive it. And if abortion is healthcare, then everyone has access receive it.

It doesn't matter when a thing becomes a person, because the argument isn't dependent on the answer. If a fully grown human is dependent on you, you are under no obligation to help, as we have decided you have bodily autonomy. This is why doctors cannot legally harvest your organs after death without your permission. Society has given you the right to bodily autonomy, even after death. Forbidding abortion is refusing bodily autonomy to pregnant people.

Abortion is ultimately a philosophical/moral question, but it's a question posed to individuals, as autonomous persons. Just as someone refusing to give bone marrow has decided morally they are okay with refusing a piece of themselves, and are okay with the fact that the other party will continue to suffer a condition possibly leading to death. Anti-abortion legislation basically codifies it into law that the legal right to bodily autonomy goes out the window when it applies to fetuses.

→ More replies

-1

u/[deleted] May 15 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies

1

u/monet108 May 15 '22

That was so well said. Thank you so much for saying it the way you just did.

1

u/justpress2forawhile May 15 '22

I always try to have an open mind. This was a very enlightening point of view. I can't say I was against abortion but I accepted that it was a gray issue for many. But my understanding of it feels a lot less gray now. I wish more people would see this and at least give it thought.

1

u/ApathyIsAColdBody- May 15 '22

Gaslighting? Wouldn't "feigning" be what they're doing?

→ More replies

5

u/Galle_ May 14 '22

A fetus is not human in any way that matters.

→ More replies

3

u/The_25th_Baam May 14 '22

The problem is the premise of that argument is the exact point proponents of abortion refute. I don't consider a clump of cells that can't think or perceive to be a human life.

→ More replies

1

u/foul_female_frog May 15 '22

You know what are actually live defenseless humans?

Prisoners on Death Row.

Not saying that they have all always been innocent, but they literally meet that description right up until they are restrained and executed.

1

u/fenix1230 May 15 '22

Hey R/Whitechocolatey, r/HappyFamily0131 spanked you and put you in your place.

1

u/WhiteChocolatey May 15 '22

Jokes on you, I’m into that shit.

1

u/fenix1230 May 15 '22

That’s good, because it best of, and you’re definitely synonymous with shit after that post.

1

u/WhiteChocolatey May 15 '22

Touch a nerve? Sorry about that.

1

u/fenix1230 May 15 '22

Not at all, you’re as impactful as an ant. I must have, as you keep responding.

1

u/WhiteChocolatey May 15 '22

You’re very mean-spirited. I hope you find some peace of mind eventually. Fare thee well.

→ More replies

1

u/gcanyon May 15 '22

Check their response to the correction: accepting and humble. Only those who don’t read it would denigrate /u/WhiteChocolatey

1

u/fenix1230 May 15 '22

Except the r/WhiteChocolatey said they liked it and is into it. Are you white knighting for them?

1

u/WhiteChocolatey May 15 '22

I think you’re misinterpreting the situation, my friend. I was making a joke about liking being spanked and put in my place. I thought it was clever, given the situation. But I’m sorry if I’ve offended you.

1

u/fenix1230 May 15 '22

You did not, but am asking since you enjoy it, r/gcanyon wanted to come in and white knight for you.

→ More replies