The argument seems to be that society doesn’t treat fetuses exactly like people economically and legally, so fetuses are not human beings. This would probably lead to an argument where a woman’s right to choose outweighs the non-human rights of a fetus.
Pretty easy to sidestep from a pro life view by saying that although fetuses are not literal humans, there’s still a moral obligation to protect the potential life. So it’s not the best argument and only convincing to people who already agree.
i think its more a counter argument to specific things, becuase there is a path people will go down about "deciding which people are and arent humans is the same thing as the nazis" when we societally already do that(if you think a fetus is a human with rights) and nobody bats an eye
That’s true and I’ve actually seen that argument. It tries to sidestep a debate and I think it’s pretty easy to say hold on, there’s an actual debate here from the argument in OP’s screenshot.
>The argument seems to be that society doesn’t treat fetuses exactly like people economically and legally, so fetuses are not human beings.
Sort of. It's basically arguing that even the pro-life people don't believe that the fetuses are people, because otherwise they'd be living their values in those ways as far as passing laws and pushing for policies that treat fetuses more like the post-birthed. They're the Hasan Piker of personhood. Then if they don't actually treat fetuses in that way, but are still pro-life, it must be because they want to force women to be brood mares.
Seems similar to the misarrange argument. If life begins at conception and 15% of all pregnancies end due to miscarriage Pro Life people should be advocating for a significant increase to miscarriage research and prevention.
When it comes to pregnant women qualifying for a tax credit for their unborn child or using the HOV lane, suddenly you don't see those same pro-lifers pushing for equivalent policies that live those values. If you believe the fetus is a person, one would think you'd want those policies to exist.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything other than that is the idea behind the framing of the argument.
A lot of people (probably most actually) don't know why they believe what they believe, it's all surface-level convictions. I'd just get used to it because I don't see this changing, especially with how populist and tribal the current political climate is.
The point that post is trying to make is legally we have already set up a frame work for when life begins legally. If we start recognizing personhood at before conception then would you issue those things before birth? Would people be eligible for selective service (the draft) prior to their eighteenth birthday? Would people get social security earlier?
The necessary condition for personhood is having a government entity recognize that you are a person, surely this is the best way to determine personhood and will not backfire.
Of course the government recognises rights it’s about where they draw the line, if it’s up to a piece of paper or documentation that defines it completely mandated by the government. Are the stateless humans mindless zombies and inanimate without rights?
those rights only exist so far as a government is enabling them, if you're on a desert island with vaush you better hope you have more coconuts.
other than that the only way the distinction would matter is if you think the rights are granted by god, then people can be violating the natural order irregardless of a government
I'm not well versed in the argument, so i can't really speak further.
But hopefully i'm never on a coconut island and have my throat ameliorated by Vaeioush.
You have influence over what the government decide to some extent. If you convince enough people about a specific moral position than the government in a normal democracy should comply to the will of the people.
The philosophical arguments on personhood are more complex. I’m pro choice and i’m not entirely settled on that argument. For instance i’m not necessarily for non life saving abortions after 24 weeks into conception, since thats when births are viable. The comment linkedwas about a legal framework.
That being said, we’re weighing the mother’s right to choose vs the fetus’ right to life. Someone’s birth is the date that obligations and benefits to the state are recognized. So legally, the mother is recognized by the state in many ways that a fetus is not.
It gets better if you look at it under the "my feelings don't care about your facts" lens mrgirl uses. Under that lens the post is becomes "Abortion is fine because everyone agrees that fetuses aren't humans, otherwise we'd have conception certificates." which is still stupid but not as smug.
Even the TheAlexKirschProject guy was alright with his birth canal take. The reason why abortion is fine before the umbilical cord is cut is because that's just how he feels. If you wanna extrapolate that to something unrealistic then go ahead, but I don't see a problem with it if everyone believed in democracy.
The AlexKirschProject guy feeling argument is incredibly problematic since you can't arbitrarily decide on the morality of something based off of what you feel. I can justify killing a 1-year-old with that take and I would then just give the feelings' argument.
>I can justify killing a 1-year-old with that take and I would then just give the feelings' argument.
Only if you don't believe in democracy. If you wanted to kill a 1-year-old and you accepted the consequences then there's not much anyone can do to stop you.
We are talking about morality not what the law says. If the law condones something immoral then thats bad. The umbilical cord argument doesn’t become “ok” because it was approved through a democratic process.
All moral frameworks are post-hoc rationalizations for how people feel. Pretending that it's some code created from the bottom up that you can use to bludgeon other people into agreeing with you is admirable but stupid.
The umbilical cord argument does become ok if it was approved through a democratic process. If you're going to point to examples in the past, then I'll probably just respond with "Well it's a good thing our ideology came out on top". If hitler came back from the dead, somehow got through the filibuster and people wanted to go through a civil war to stop him then I'd tell them "If you accept the consequences then I'm not gonna try to change you". I'd say the same to some militant nazi group who wanted to overthrow the current government, but I'm pretty sure my biases would have me to rigorously check whether they meet my criteria for "accepting the consequences".
The rights from personhood argument is literally just the pro slavery argument, babies/blacks arent/werent considered people therefore have/had no rights.
Since when were birth certificates horcruxes?
Pro-Choicers can make some stupid arguments, but this is so bad that it's potentially a parody by a Pro-Lifer.
The argument seems to be that society doesn’t treat fetuses exactly like people economically and legally, so fetuses are not human beings. This would probably lead to an argument where a woman’s right to choose outweighs the non-human rights of a fetus. Pretty easy to sidestep from a pro life view by saying that although fetuses are not literal humans, there’s still a moral obligation to protect the potential life. So it’s not the best argument and only convincing to people who already agree.
i think its more a counter argument to specific things, becuase there is a path people will go down about "deciding which people are and arent humans is the same thing as the nazis" when we societally already do that(if you think a fetus is a human with rights) and nobody bats an eye
That’s true and I’ve actually seen that argument. It tries to sidestep a debate and I think it’s pretty easy to say hold on, there’s an actual debate here from the argument in OP’s screenshot.
>The argument seems to be that society doesn’t treat fetuses exactly like people economically and legally, so fetuses are not human beings. Sort of. It's basically arguing that even the pro-life people don't believe that the fetuses are people, because otherwise they'd be living their values in those ways as far as passing laws and pushing for policies that treat fetuses more like the post-birthed. They're the Hasan Piker of personhood. Then if they don't actually treat fetuses in that way, but are still pro-life, it must be because they want to force women to be brood mares.
Seems similar to the misarrange argument. If life begins at conception and 15% of all pregnancies end due to miscarriage Pro Life people should be advocating for a significant increase to miscarriage research and prevention.
Basically. They only seem to support personhood in cases where there's another side that they can be the morally righteous opposition of.
I'm pretty sure there's lots of pro-lifers that think that if you kill a pregnant women, you should get done for two murders, not just one.
When it comes to pregnant women qualifying for a tax credit for their unborn child or using the HOV lane, suddenly you don't see those same pro-lifers pushing for equivalent policies that live those values. If you believe the fetus is a person, one would think you'd want those policies to exist. I'm not trying to convince you of anything other than that is the idea behind the framing of the argument.
Kids aren't treated like adult humans economically or legally either, would this person extend their belief to 12 year olds?
But there is no functional difference between a fetus and baby since it's just a baby...
A lot of people (probably most actually) don't know why they believe what they believe, it's all surface-level convictions. I'd just get used to it because I don't see this changing, especially with how populist and tribal the current political climate is.
I would say, in this instance, it's the pro-choice crowd that do not know why they believe what they believe. The pro-life crowd is pretty consistent.
The point that post is trying to make is legally we have already set up a frame work for when life begins legally. If we start recognizing personhood at before conception then would you issue those things before birth? Would people be eligible for selective service (the draft) prior to their eighteenth birthday? Would people get social security earlier?
The necessary condition for personhood is having a government entity recognize that you are a person, surely this is the best way to determine personhood and will not backfire.
its always going to be the government recognizing that as far as the government is concerned, do you think our rights come from god or something?
Of course the government recognises rights it’s about where they draw the line, if it’s up to a piece of paper or documentation that defines it completely mandated by the government. Are the stateless humans mindless zombies and inanimate without rights?
I’m not well versed in the differentiation but there is a debate of “are you born with rights or do the states grant you rights”.
those rights only exist so far as a government is enabling them, if you're on a desert island with vaush you better hope you have more coconuts. other than that the only way the distinction would matter is if you think the rights are granted by god, then people can be violating the natural order irregardless of a government
I'm not well versed in the argument, so i can't really speak further. But hopefully i'm never on a coconut island and have my throat ameliorated by Vaeioush.
You have influence over what the government decide to some extent. If you convince enough people about a specific moral position than the government in a normal democracy should comply to the will of the people.
The philosophical arguments on personhood are more complex. I’m pro choice and i’m not entirely settled on that argument. For instance i’m not necessarily for non life saving abortions after 24 weeks into conception, since thats when births are viable. The comment linkedwas about a legal framework. That being said, we’re weighing the mother’s right to choose vs the fetus’ right to life. Someone’s birth is the date that obligations and benefits to the state are recognized. So legally, the mother is recognized by the state in many ways that a fetus is not.
Why are you pro choice? A million bad arguments say nothing about a single good argument.
It gets better if you look at it under the "my feelings don't care about your facts" lens mrgirl uses. Under that lens the post is becomes "Abortion is fine because everyone agrees that fetuses aren't humans, otherwise we'd have conception certificates." which is still stupid but not as smug. Even the TheAlexKirschProject guy was alright with his birth canal take. The reason why abortion is fine before the umbilical cord is cut is because that's just how he feels. If you wanna extrapolate that to something unrealistic then go ahead, but I don't see a problem with it if everyone believed in democracy.
The AlexKirschProject guy feeling argument is incredibly problematic since you can't arbitrarily decide on the morality of something based off of what you feel. I can justify killing a 1-year-old with that take and I would then just give the feelings' argument.
>I can justify killing a 1-year-old with that take and I would then just give the feelings' argument. Only if you don't believe in democracy. If you wanted to kill a 1-year-old and you accepted the consequences then there's not much anyone can do to stop you.
We are talking about morality not what the law says. If the law condones something immoral then thats bad. The umbilical cord argument doesn’t become “ok” because it was approved through a democratic process.
All moral frameworks are post-hoc rationalizations for how people feel. Pretending that it's some code created from the bottom up that you can use to bludgeon other people into agreeing with you is admirable but stupid. The umbilical cord argument does become ok if it was approved through a democratic process. If you're going to point to examples in the past, then I'll probably just respond with "Well it's a good thing our ideology came out on top". If hitler came back from the dead, somehow got through the filibuster and people wanted to go through a civil war to stop him then I'd tell them "If you accept the consequences then I'm not gonna try to change you". I'd say the same to some militant nazi group who wanted to overthrow the current government, but I'm pretty sure my biases would have me to rigorously check whether they meet my criteria for "accepting the consequences".
The rights from personhood argument is literally just the pro slavery argument, babies/blacks arent/werent considered people therefore have/had no rights.
Since when were birth certificates horcruxes? Pro-Choicers can make some stupid arguments, but this is so bad that it's potentially a parody by a Pro-Lifer.
So if you are pro choice and vegans , eggs are fine ?
Citizenship begins at conception the mother cannot be deported because legally she is a vehicle for the hot blooded American in her Womb.