Disclaimer: I don’t want to offend anyone, so I am spoilering below an example of how someone might discuss the subject of what a fetus is and if it deserves protection if they were so inclined.
A fetus is technically a parasite. A parasite that like many other parasites can be eliminated from the body with medication when caught early. The fact that some people intentionally infect themselves with this parasite doesn’t change what it is.
You’re gonna get gotcha’ed by people saying, acktschually, a parasite has to be a different species.
I don’t think they get bogged down in the technicalities.
You can discuss it a few ways I suppose. However, I think you’ll find that people think it’s highly unpersuasive and factually incorrect.
The far better focus is on autonomy. Start off with why should someone be forced to carry their rapists baby. Then focus on the dangers of being pregnant and why should someone go through that if it could kill them and expand from there.
Going with some ‘well ackshully’ gotcha isn’t going to work with anyone.
The fact that she’s having an internal debate about which of her conservative friends in 20 fucking 22 would or would not vote to ban… checks notes… MARRYING A PERSON THAT DOESN’T LOOK LIKE YOU… is quite something.
Next up we argue about how many angels fit on the head of a pin.
By that logic, any woman who menustrates is a serial killer since not every fertilized egg is implanted in the lining of the uterus. As a matter of fact, 50% of fertilized eggs do not. We’d have countless women of child-rearing age in jail or even on death row
Ok so maybe they do get bogged down in technicalities.
https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm
But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, “Look, we’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you–we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.” Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. “Tough luck. I agree. but now you’ve got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person’s right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him.” I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.
Yeah, I was embracing a troll argument there for a minute. One of the more persuasive arguments I’ve found with people who are anti-abortion but at least somewhat open minded is asking them if they are aware that the majority of abortions are done by just taking a pill. Most are not, and are usually willing to admit that they can at least agree that that shouldn’t be a big deal. And then you have an opening.
That argument will never work on the crazy religious group, but you’re never winning them over anyway.
Lol USA, the #1 freest country in the whole wide world.
I could still see a couple of states electing enough total true-believer lunatics that it happens. Like I would put the O/U at 1.5 of states that manage to ban birth control within say five years.
Loving is safe, imo. (God it feels awful having to write that)
No1curr about the logic used to overturn Roe. The court will either want to enable bans on interracial marriage or they won’t. Show me a state GOP platform that supports a ban on interracial marriage. Meanwhile what do you think the Democratic Party’s platform in Mississippi says about abortion?
Its not 1950. This is not to say racism has disappeared or even diminished to whatever degree (although objectively society is less racist). Its that racism in 2022 comes in largely different forms. Racism in 2022 is far more focused on identity and politics than the segregation-is-an-absolute-necessity views of the past. There’s no bigger hero to your garden variety GOP racist than the black conservative. Guaranteed most of these guys look at a black couple with more fear/anger than a mixed white and black couple.
It’s times like this when I ask why North Dakota is even a state
Imagine actually fucking believing that. It’s insanity.
I think the key is to really, really hate women. Then “sacrificing” them in service to virtually any other cause feels like a win-win.
In their heart of hearts most people lifers believe this I think.
People live in neighborhoods just as segregated as they’ve always been
Schools are getting more segregated, and there is a movement to continue that segregation that’s the same strength and same people as the anti-abortion Federalist Society stuff. It’s called school choice, and the goal is to eventually stop paying for Black kids’ primary education altogether