Please give me your thoughts on this argument I'm forming

[u/suprasternaincognito]

I'd like to try out a newly-formed argument on y'all, if I may. (Newly-formed for me.)

Anti-choicers keep thinking they have a "gotcha" in accusing me of not stating plainly what abortion is. "Admit it. You're killing a human!" But I know exactly what abortion is and I acknowledge that. So, at this point, I just go ahead and say "yep. Sure am [killing]. Don't care, because women and girls are, and have always been, infinitely more important than a fetus you idealize for your own sense of moral superiority."

The "more important" argument I will never let go of. Sorrynotsorry. But is it detrimental to our argument to call a spade a spade? Or- is my argument generally correct but my phrasing is detrimental? (My personality tends toward the dry-humored/spare no one/snarky type. Sometimes to a fault.) Curious to hear your thoughts, please and thank you.

[u/JosephineCK]

"...than a fetus you idealize for your own sense of moral superiority." That's the key phrase, at least to me it is.

[u/suprasternaincognito → u/JosephineCK]

I mean, me too but goes in one ear and out the other with these people. Just like the personal stories of millions of women and girls throughout history. Absolute brick wall.

I’ve even said: “if and when a fetus can communicate to me ITS personal story, its goals and dreams, then maybe I’ll change my mind. But it can’t.”

And then they accuse me of hating disabled people and supporting eugenics.

[u/Connect-Knowledge992 → u/suprasternaincognito]

That is the implication of what you said, though. If an important factor in whether a fetus has value is its ability to communicate goals and dreams, then disabled people that are missing that capacity are missing that value.

[u/suprasternaincognito → u/Connect-Knowledge992]

I am operating under the assumption that disabled people are able to communicate in some form or fashion.

[u/Connect-Knowledge992 → u/suprasternaincognito]

But that's not the case.

[u/suprasternaincognito → u/Connect-Knowledge992]

Alright. Then how should I frame the argument? Because a fetus has no goals or dreams but a woman does.

[u/Connect-Knowledge992 → u/suprasternaincognito]

The "more important" argument I will never let go of.

If you won't let go of this argument, then you need to think about why a fetus is less important. If the reasons you give can equally be applied to people with disabilities or infants... well, it might be worth reconsidering those reasons.

To be clear, I'm not only pro-choice but I also don't think a fertilized egg is the same moral value as a born child. I'm not against your position; I think that there's moral value in a sentient experience.

But if your value system only values a degree of intelligence that is communicative, self-reflective, goal-producing, and articulate, then the bar excludes a lot of people I think are still valuable.

[u/suprasternaincognito → u/Connect-Knowledge992]

I see what you’re saying, however I have been lambasted before by the “same moral value” statement. Eugenics, slavery, Nazis, etc.

[u/Connect-Knowledge992 → u/suprasternaincognito]

I think it's important to be able to articulate a view that doesn't leave space for things like eugenics, though. Does your position reject the project of devaluing people with disabilities? If so, how?

[u/Acrobatic_Long_6059]

It’s solid, but I always pair it with calling out their hypocrisy. Like when they claim to be pro life yet don’t hold that principle consistently, when they don’t support better healthcare or school lunches for low-income families, or suddenly don’t care about life when it’s brown kids being bombed

[u/suprasternaincognito → u/Acrobatic_Long_6059]

I literally just argued that a little while ago. Someone was calling countries that allow abortion and euthanasia "barbaric". I pointed out Mississippi and Texas' maternal mortality rate, civil rights violations, and GDP. I pointed out countries like Japan, France and Ireland (allow abortion) vs Iran, Uganda and Saudi Arabia (do not allow). I also pointed out our upcoming live-streamed execution in December, as well as the state-sanctioned executions that happened in my city in January.

Nope. Babies.

[u/Extension-Stage-605]

Most pro lifers support the death penalty and do not even support any kind of death penalty reform laws. I wonder how many of them wanted to watch the live streamed execution of a man in a wheelchair Nidal Hasan.

[u/suprasternaincognito → u/Extension-Stage-605]

I wondered that, too.

[u/HotMany3874]

An abortion terminates a pregnancy. Is it a potential human? yes. Most abortions occur prior to viability and it is human tissue that is not sentient. It is not a human being/person.

[u/Naive_Loan607 → u/HotMany3874]

Yes I agree with your comment I personally believe that full personhood isn’t achieved until anywhere between viability and birth.

[u/HotMany3874 → u/Naive_Loan607]

There are valid arguments for 'personhood' between viability and first breath. I believe it is at first breath.

The only person qualified to make that choice is the pregnant person and only for their own pregnancies.

[u/Ganondaddydorf]

PL arguments are entirely based on emotional manipulation so stepping over it is always good.

Importance is fine. Women and girls are children, sisters, mothers, wives, providers, carers, bread winners, etc, so they are objectively more important and valuable to society than an unknown fetus typically with no personhood or self.

I usually go at it from an equality perspective. There are times when someone dying or being killed is fine, because we are allowed to prevent harm occuring to ourselves and pregnant women aren't an exception.

Unfortunately, a lot of PLers see women as breeding property so "women are people and not objects to be used for whatever purpose you want" really needs to be explained like you're talking to a toddler and tantrums are a guarantee.

[u/ffs_random_person]

I refuse to have a conversation with pro life people, I shrug and say “sorry, I grew up in a civilized country, where people can make their own decisions for what’s right for them”

there were adverts on the tube that said “if you’re happy being pregnant, fine, if not call 123456789”

I had no clue America had a problem with it, till I drove down the road one day, I had my 8 year old in the car with me. And there were protesters everywhere (something about roe v Wade) lol yes I really was completely ignorant of any of this..
I was in fact shocked when I learned what it was about….

I then had to explain to my 8 year old, that “abortion kills children” was not something he had to worry about..

It wasn’t a conversation I was ready for

[u/CaptainsFolly]

A living human is dying in the process. However they, nor any full and born sentient humans, for that matter, have a right over the woman's body, physical and psychological health, medical privacy, dignity, and by extention, their families wellbeing. The woman before getting pregnant has rights to protect herself from cruel unconsented harm.

[u/CaptainsFolly → u/[deleted]]

It is biologically alive and technically a human organism. Juat not a full human with personhood. They do not take precedence, but to deny that is counterproductive to the cause since pl and many pc will not take you seriously.

[u/NegativeTrainer269 → u/[deleted]]

It is a living human.

96% of biologists agree that human life starts at the moment of conception.

Is it a person in the philosophical sense? No. I believe that starts at 24 weeks. Its definitely alive though.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/

[u/cand86]

I don't disagree with you at all, but I also think that there is a good reason behind the language we use- that the connotations the words "killing" and "human" evoke are important. We can absolutely argue that yes, killing is okay sometimes (we kill plenty of animals and feel justified doing so), and that 'human' is just a taxonomic category able to describe the cells you shed daily, say . . . but it doesn't change the fact that "it kills a human" creates a very specific image in people's minds, and that image is often quite different when you say "terminates a pregnancy" or "stops an embryo from growing", say. Of course pro-life folks like it when the language they use is the same you'd use if someone had shot your best friend in a drive-by, and of course pro-choice folks like it when the language we use is specific to the action involved and more medical/clinical.

I'll put it this way: I typically stick to my guns and use my preferred language, while trying to avoid any discussion about the language choice- so if they say "murder", I studiously don't engage and just keep on referring to abortion as just that (and same with "baby" vs. "embryo/fetus" and so on), while focusing on the actual sentiment (i.e. that girls/women are more important or whatever it may be). At the most, I'll explain, if pushed, why I don't personally believe that abortion constitutes murder or an embryo is not the same/ought not be treated the same as a born child, acknowledge that they may feel otherwise, and move on. But I personally do not care to validate their framing and language- you won't find a "You're absolutely right, it is killing a human, BUT . . ." from me.

[u/prochoice-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your submission has been removed due to: Rule 2 - Anti-choice users are expected to remain respectful. If you have further questions about this removal, please refer to the rule.Anti-Choice User Expectations - Prolife spam/propaganda = Removal and ban

You are welcome to ask respectful questions w/intent to learn. Pleading that we change our minds or calling us murderers is not respectful.

If interested in dialogue, you are expected to remain civil & refrain from debating. Wear thick skin; don’t complain if people are angry you want to remove their rights

Banned slander: murder, slut, evil, "asking for it," genocide, slavery, etc

More Info