1123
What the fuck are you saying??
(lemmy.wtf)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2024
1123 points (97.0% liked)
WTF
779 readers
1 users here now
The average c/WTF enjoyer
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I can only guess what the context here is but to imply that "they're fine with kids getting raped" is almost definitely an extremely dishonest strawman of what they're actually trying to say. This type of bad-faith dunking on people you disagree with only makes them dig down their heels even deeper and, I'd argue, is only making things worse.
If I had to steelman their position without knowing full context, I'm assuming that what they're trying to say is that abortion shouldn't be legal just because of the comparatively small number of cases where it perhaps would be justified (incest/rape) because it opens the door to a huge number of what they see as unecessary abortions.
If one truly cares about changing minds rather than scoring worthless internet points then you need to take down the foundations - not break the windows. Breaking windows is fun and easy but it doesn't achieve anything. Listen to what people are saying and challenge their core beliefs.
I think the point here is that they’re willing to “sacrifice” a few 10-year-olds if it means saving tens of thousands of other children aborted yearly for what they see as lesser reasons.
Though I don’t agree with their view, if a religious person genuinely believes that life begins at conception and sees no difference between ending the life of a 10-day-old embryo and a 10-year-old child - because they believe both lives are equally valuable - then I can’t entirely fault their reasoning. In this case, the issue lies with their false, unscientific religious beliefs, not necessarily their stance on abortion. If you truly believe that life starts at conception, being against abortion is a perfectly logical position to take.
Eh, not really. In a vacuum, sure, but if a 10-year-old becomes pregnant, then that life is surely suffering, and probably also in danger from the pregnancy. If the pregnancy were to go awry, that could end both lives. If the pregnancy went off without a hitch, then another life has been introduced into a place of suffering.
But the wellbeing of this particular 10-year-old or their child isn’t the point here. If someone believes that life begins at conception and that all life is sacred, then being anti-abortion is a perfectly logical stance. Otherwise, they’d effectively be okay with the act of murdering unwanted children.
A person with this belief might still acknowledge that there are situations where abortion could be justified. However, they may fear that allowing it, even in narrow cases, creates a slippery slope that could lead to thousands of unnecessary abortions.
Religious people literally worship suffering, you won't convince them with this argument.
Specifically, Christians. There are plenty of religions that have no problem with abortion (and are against suffering).
Even Christian values allow for the taking of a life to save another, i.e. self defense. A 10 year old can arguably get an abortion and not violate Christianity. Most abortions aren't 10 year olds, either, and a straw man argument helps no one.
Yes, I suppose I should have been specific...
Even ignorong all those risks there's also simply not being into having children and wanting to live without them.
But you need to understand that to a religious person this is a completely insane thing to say. You can't simply kill a person just because you don't want to be inconvenienced by having to take care of them. They see abortion as an equivalent to killing a 3-year-old who refuses to eat their vegetables.
Except these same people very often don't believe in welfare, socialised medicine, believe in overseas military intervention, etc.
Not that such views are expressed in OP, maybe they're actually very principled on this matter (e.g. 1 fetus aborted is equal to one Palestinian kid being blown up, or one homeless person dying to exposure). But I've pretty much always found these things are a package deal.
I think this also ignores the history of anti-abortion politics. Even for Catholics it's a relatively recent invention, let alone american protestants, and it always seems to rear its head during fears of demographic decline. The individual (stated) belief follows the political and material circumstances before it.
But even when steelmaning the argument, they deserve to be called out on not even considering a middle ground where 10 year old rape victims are not allowed an abortion. Because “opening up doors” is a too big a cost for them.
I agree to a certain degree, that twisting someone’s pretty shitty argument isn’t helping the discourse. So my response isn’t really directed at you.
Steelmanning an argument doesn't make it immune to refutation. It just means you're refuting the strongest possible version. In this case, the argument is so inherently fucked up that even the steelman version is still a "what the fuck?"
There have been 0 unnecessary abortions performed on earth. There have been billions of unnecessary rapes. The world would be a better place if we had had more abortions and less rapes.
I'm sure that there have been abortions performed without the consent of the abortee (?) In that case, I would deem them unnecessary. (Although, a much stronger word is more appropriate.)
Im not sure what term to use there either, I think the abortee might be the fetus. Aborter I'm guessing. Although if it was without consent then the aborter may be a staircase or a car crash?
Sometimes people will force their partner to get an abortion, because they don't want to have to deal with the kid. That's a quotidian example.
Thats a very subjective statement though. What is a "necessary" abortion? If you define any abortion that the woman wants as necessary, then sure, but there are other perspectives as well.
If it was necessary for someone involved, it was necessary.
You have the same thought process that allows health insurance companies to decline paying for cancer treatments. If they are not involved, not the person or their doctor, why is "necessity" a thing they can make a judgement on? Is the person making that decision an oncologist? Did they provide an alternate treatment plan?
It's the person asking if the abortion is necessary the woman or their gynecologist? Obstetrician? Yoga instructor? Are they providing an alternate treatment plan?
This reasoning can be used to justify a whole bunch of acts
Yeah, like most personal freedoms boil down to first party judgements being more valid than 3rd party.
So is the world being a better place. Some people think the world would be a better place if humanity wasn't here. Some don't. Some people like turtles, and those who don't like turtles are wrong.
I think the point of their argument, not that I agree with them, is that they see any abortion as straight up murder, so in their mind child rape is an acceptable consequence because the alternative is child murder.
That's why this argument is so pervasive in keeping the masses separated, it's a choice between the left's bodily autonomy and the religious right's believing life starts at conception. Neither side is willing to concede an inch to the other because it's not an argument where you can compromise.
For what it’s worth, this happens in both scenarios, so to them it’s rape or rape + murder. Which is why the reply is useless
Though like the bible says; all women should have an abortion to prove they are faithful. If the child is the husband’s then god will protect it
Ok, but on the other hand, I feel like the position of "make all abortions illegal, even though I acknowledge that there are known cases and examples where abortion is justified" is still less reasonable than "make abortion illegal, but make exceptions where abortion is justified". Like, it would be super easy to have and justify that more nuanced opinion, and it would prevent them from being "dunked on" by people extrapolating their position to "you're ok with child rape and unnecessary forced pregnancies/births".
Thank you. Here and in your answers down below you show that you are willing to honestly think about the position the other side has. I greatly appreciate that (in general, not only in regards to this topic) for the reasons you listed above. If you realy want to get trough to another person, taking their position serious and trying to understand it is the first step, that is misses so many times for a trough a way "gotcha" moment nowadays.
I wouldn't worry about trying to convince zealots. Probably the best you can hope for is changing the minds of third parties watching your debate. Argue for them, not your opponent.