Against lobotomies?! Don’t have one!
Against abortion ,don’t have one, leaves out the unstated but should be understood part. If you don’t believe in abortion ,don’t have one, that is your business. However if .I believe abortion is a womans right, that is my business. I will not decide for you to have one. You do not decide I should not .
Yes I got all that and it’s a valid point except that it isn’t intended to be part of a convincing argument. It’s a statement about choice. It’s saying
It’s my body, so it’s my choice.
I’d like to see their own religious thinking turned against them.
“God can judge my choices, but I’d like you to shut up”
and the penalties for doctors and women would be the penalties for murder. Many of them don’t support that either.
Does this colostomy bag match my shoes?
Well they’re not about to fuck off and unless you can convince them otherwise, they will do one of two things.
Elect Presidents who will appoint supreme court justices that put a significantly pro-life gloss on Roe v. Wade. You honestly think a court full of Samuel Alito’s wouldn’t narrow the scope of the right of privacy pronounced in Roe v. Wade? We would effectively go back to state regulation of abortion… unless you can convince people of your position.
-OR-
If the elect enough congressmen, they can pass a constitutional amendment that overturns Roe v. Wade. In a democracy, you absolutely have to engage them especially when your entire argument rests on what many objective legal scholars consider one of the less convincingly written opinions in Constitutional jurisprudence.
Before Roe v. Wade, don’t you think the conservative attitude was “I wish those abortionists would just fuck off”
Many of our laws are about imposing our morality on others.
Anti-bigamy laws.
Almost all vice laws.
Heck, most criminal laws I can think of have some element of morality underlying them.
What if I believe child abuse is my right? And you say, no it’s not, and I say, well then don’t do it yourself! And then you say, oh, but child abuse is wrong because the child has rights too, and I say that you are a smug sanctimonious douche bag ignorant asshole and that I might make a better argument but you don’t deserve it because you don’t respect my right as a parent to beat my child.
At what point do I convince you that I have a right to abuse my child? Just curious.
Because that’s pretty much how it’s going to come off to someone who does see that fetus as a child.
See post 19.
That’s exactly backward. Don’t nobody need to be convinced abortion isn’t evil. Child abuse being your right runs counter to the will of the people both in general and as codified into law.
Abortion does not. It’s more like what if you wanted to convince other people that not giving children enough sweets wasn’t their right?
I’m not sure who that is directed to, but (a) not all pro lifers are even willing to make exceptions, (b) when they do it is out of legal expediency, because they know they have to make those exceptions, © the real or imagined hypocrisy of the pro life position still doesn’t make the “my body/my choice” line of reasoning work to somebody who is steadfastly pro life.
Um, actually there are lots of people who do insist quite vehemently that they have the right to spank or otherwise physically abuse their children. Of course they would introduce a fallacious line where what they are doing is not “abuse,” just “correction,” but the point is that they would make it personal. THEY know what to do with THEIR CHILD. I’ve seen friends have this argument right in front of me after a child is spanked.
The problem isn’t the bumper sticker argument. It is the very real, if slightly longer argument that it condenses. Namely, that abortions are a personal matter and nobody should be able to dictate when or if you can have one. Actually, the problem isn’t that argument itself, but rather the assumption by many pro-choicer supporters that no other position can be validly held.
ETA: By this I mean the assumption is that any one not pro-choice is either crazy or evil and just wants to harm women.
Currently we as a society legally draw a line in the sand that says the rights of the mother to make choice about her body supersede the rights of the fetus to continue developing. That line is not handed down from on high or set in our genetic code. It is just where we have currently set it. At different points in history, we had different lines, like the rights of a man to manage his house superseded the rights of wives and children to not be beaten, or for the wives to refuse to have sex or to control their own property and wages. Or the rights or a lord over his serfs. We, as a society first weakened and then removed those lines. Pro-life supporters want to remove, or at least weaken the line prioritizing a woman’s right to control her body over the fetus’s right to exist. Agree or disagree as you will, but it is not helpful to side step the crux of the issue.
Unless you just want to dismiss them entirely. Then it works fine.
Full disclosure, I believe abortions are a tragedy and morally wrong in most situations, but I do not believe they should be illegal. I would very much like to see them become unnecessary.
Who gives a shit, though? Child abuse is against the law. They can say they have the right all they like; doesn’t make it analogous to a woman having the authority to decide what happens to her body, which right she actually has.
Sure, and civil rights laws as well. My post didn’t refer to laws.
I think strangers trying to control what I do in my private, personal life is evil. It’s none of your business if I choose to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason. Butt out.
Politically, this could be a good approach, if pro-life didn’t define ‘life’ as before implantation. That doesn’t leave a lot of room for discussion and debate, does it?
I, too, have never been fond of that summary of the position - I prefer:
I’ll listen to your opinion on abortion when you get pregnant.
And that is not just a pithy sentence - if you haven’t been faced with the choice, I don’t care what you think you think. And it is a choice.
However, I do take exception to your position that we always must respect others’ definitions of evil.
I don’t think marriage between people of exclusive European descent and exclusive or partial African descent is evil, but others have.
I don’t think the combination of herbal medicine and an earth based polytheism is evil, but others have.
I don’t think the sexuality of women is evil, but others have.
And I don’t think the United States is evil, but others have.
So, despite your little plea for respect for everyone’s beliefs, I am not going to show any respect for Jim Crow, the Inquisition and slavery, or the plane hijacks in 2001.
And I will never respect the belief that a person must bring a child into this world unwillingly. Everyone who gives birth has the right to choose to do so; every child born has the right to be chosen.
Has it occurred to you that some people find opposition to abortion evil?
I’ve repeatedly seen pro-choicers offer this as a rebuttal during abortion-related debates. Either they do consider it to be a persuasive argument or they’re deliberately offering a bad one.
Well, the ones who aren’t willing to make exceptions aren’t arguing an inherently illogical position. However, they’re far from the majority of pro-lifers.
There is no convincing them, they’re not rational on the subject, so why waste my time pretending that I’m anything other than contemptuous of their position?
I’m guessing the former.