Notably, this is my exact conclusion-- but my point isn’t that a pregnant person should not be allowed to have a choice-- only that the argument could be logically made that the rights of the zygote are more important. A parent has to feed and care for their kids, even if they want to abandon them to go spend a week in vegas. We make judgement on whose rights matter more all the time, and abortion/choice is no different.
My point was that it doesn’t help anyone to dismiss that there is a judgement to be made. You and I have both obviously made judgments that the pregnant person’s right to bodily autonomy is of greater importance, but that doesn’t mean that this is objectively true, or that the zygote doesn’t have rights or should be considered a person for legal purposes.
No I get it, you’re playing devil’s advocate in 1,000 words, but it’s all for naught. That’s all it comes down to - if someone is “pro life”, their opinion is that people should be forced by the government to be live organ donors. And yes, their opinion can then absolutely be dismissed out of hand, because it is irrational and does not respect the rights of the human they are forcing into organ donor slavery.
I’m not even here to debate the personhood status of a fetus, an embryo, a zygote, etc… No human (or potential human) has the right to take blood and tissue from another human by government force.
I’m not playing devil’s advocate. I’m pointing out that this is not an objective truth-- that whether or not pregnant people should have (safe) access to abortions is up to society, and thus it is best for those of us who believe that society is better off when there is safe access to abortion (which the data supports!) should make an effort to convince those people that disagree.
This topic has a lot of parallels to the debate on capital punishment. Much of the support for capital punishment is based on incorrect assumptions, bad information, and feelings. Luckily, people seem easier to sway away from capital punishment, but it would be infinitely more difficult if the arguments for capital punishment were just laughed at or ignored.
Does this apply to vaccines? There are many (many) people in this thread that tell me that no one has to get vaccinated, they can just live in the woods on a mountain-- but I can’t help but wonder who enforces this, if not the government. (I do think people should be required to get vaccinated, btw-- but I also think “my body, my choice” is a weak argument.)
In common language, the phrase ‘playing devil’s advocate’ describes a situation where someone, given a certain point of view, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further using valid reasoning that both disagrees with the subject at hand and proves their own point valid.
I’m pointing out that this is not an objective truth
Then you’re a little hazy on the topic of government-mandated organ donation slavery. Okay.
This topic has a lot of parallels to the debate on capital punishment
I’m not going to debate for or against capital punishment, but the two situations are not comparable unless you believe that pregnancy is a capital crime deserving of the punishment of forced organ donation slavery.
Does this apply to vaccines?
Unfortunately, yes. While it would have been nice and would have saved many more lives if everyone had been forced to get vaccinated, the government cannot force that on anyone. They can require that government workers and military either get vaccinated or lose their jobs / be discharged from service, however.
Now, is there anything else you’d like to throw out as devil’s advocate?
Well, you mostly missed the point but you grazed it.
They can require that government workers and military either get vaccinated or lose their jobs / be discharged from service, however.
And should the government be able to do the same if a pregnant person gets an abortion? (Remember, my point is that “my body, my choice” is not a good argument). And to that point:
Yes, you are
I have not once defended anti-choice. I am pointing out that the arguments many people use to defend abortion-choice aren’t well thought out. Like “it’s just a clump of cells” or “my body, my choice”. Well, I’m trying to do that. YMMV on how successful I’ve been, haha.
You’re right, I made the mistake of engaging your falsehoods instead of immediately dismissing them out of hand. No, now that I come to think of it, vaccinations and forced birth are not the same because vaccinations do not require you to remove blood and tissue from yourself and give them to another person. So, apologies that I gave your devil’s advocate argument an ounce of credence.
I have not once defended anti-choice. I am pointing out that the arguments many people use to defend abortion-choice aren’t well thought out
Yes, by using pro-life baseless arguments and assertions in a devil’s advocate fashion to point out why you believe we shouldn’t immediately dismiss them as the irrational drivel they are.
A “hypothetical” in this case is no different than JAQing off, which is itself a modern version of playing devil’s advocate, but in bad faith.
You began (as you said in your original comment) with a losing premise, in that every argument you can put out there to try to lend any validity to pro-life views can and will be dismissed as baseless drivel that ignores the rights of the women that would be forced into organ donation slavery.
I will agree with the one premise that every argument that isn’t “the government can’t force people into organ donation slavery” can also be dismissed out of hand as being irrelevant to the only aspect of this topic that matters.
No, a hypothetical is just helping people see a logical inconsistency. If you agree that people should be free to refuse vaccinations with no negative consequences, then you are logically consistent when you leverage the “my body, my choice” stance. Is that your stance, for vaccines? Many people in this thread insist that there should be consequences to refusing a vaccine (no interaction with society, for example), but that is not really a choice then.
Dismissing points out of hand does not dispute those stances; it does not move to convince the people that hold those stances that the stances are flawed.
Notably, this is my exact conclusion-- but my point isn’t that a pregnant person should not be allowed to have a choice-- only that the argument could be logically made that the rights of the zygote are more important. A parent has to feed and care for their kids, even if they want to abandon them to go spend a week in vegas. We make judgement on whose rights matter more all the time, and abortion/choice is no different.
My point was that it doesn’t help anyone to dismiss that there is a judgement to be made. You and I have both obviously made judgments that the pregnant person’s right to bodily autonomy is of greater importance, but that doesn’t mean that this is objectively true, or that the zygote doesn’t have rights or should be considered a person for legal purposes.
No I get it, you’re playing devil’s advocate in 1,000 words, but it’s all for naught. That’s all it comes down to - if someone is “pro life”, their opinion is that people should be forced by the government to be live organ donors. And yes, their opinion can then absolutely be dismissed out of hand, because it is irrational and does not respect the rights of the human they are forcing into organ donor slavery.
I’m not even here to debate the personhood status of a fetus, an embryo, a zygote, etc… No human (or potential human) has the right to take blood and tissue from another human by government force.
I’m not playing devil’s advocate. I’m pointing out that this is not an objective truth-- that whether or not pregnant people should have (safe) access to abortions is up to society, and thus it is best for those of us who believe that society is better off when there is safe access to abortion (which the data supports!) should make an effort to convince those people that disagree.
This topic has a lot of parallels to the debate on capital punishment. Much of the support for capital punishment is based on incorrect assumptions, bad information, and feelings. Luckily, people seem easier to sway away from capital punishment, but it would be infinitely more difficult if the arguments for capital punishment were just laughed at or ignored.
Does this apply to vaccines? There are many (many) people in this thread that tell me that no one has to get vaccinated, they can just live in the woods on a mountain-- but I can’t help but wonder who enforces this, if not the government. (I do think people should be required to get vaccinated, btw-- but I also think “my body, my choice” is a weak argument.)
Yes, you are. If you don’t believe you are, you need to look up the definition of the term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate
Then you’re a little hazy on the topic of government-mandated organ donation slavery. Okay.
I’m not going to debate for or against capital punishment, but the two situations are not comparable unless you believe that pregnancy is a capital crime deserving of the punishment of forced organ donation slavery.
Unfortunately, yes. While it would have been nice and would have saved many more lives if everyone had been forced to get vaccinated, the government cannot force that on anyone. They can require that government workers and military either get vaccinated or lose their jobs / be discharged from service, however.
Now, is there anything else you’d like to throw out as devil’s advocate?
Well, you mostly missed the point but you grazed it.
And should the government be able to do the same if a pregnant person gets an abortion? (Remember, my point is that “my body, my choice” is not a good argument). And to that point:
I have not once defended anti-choice. I am pointing out that the arguments many people use to defend abortion-choice aren’t well thought out. Like “it’s just a clump of cells” or “my body, my choice”. Well, I’m trying to do that. YMMV on how successful I’ve been, haha.
You’re right, I made the mistake of engaging your falsehoods instead of immediately dismissing them out of hand. No, now that I come to think of it, vaccinations and forced birth are not the same because vaccinations do not require you to remove blood and tissue from yourself and give them to another person. So, apologies that I gave your devil’s advocate argument an ounce of credence.
Yes, by using pro-life baseless arguments and assertions in a devil’s advocate fashion to point out why you believe we shouldn’t immediately dismiss them as the irrational drivel they are.
A hypothetical is not a falsehood. Seriously.
What pro-life baseless arguments are you referring to?
A “hypothetical” in this case is no different than JAQing off, which is itself a modern version of playing devil’s advocate, but in bad faith.
You began (as you said in your original comment) with a losing premise, in that every argument you can put out there to try to lend any validity to pro-life views can and will be dismissed as baseless drivel that ignores the rights of the women that would be forced into organ donation slavery.
I will agree with the one premise that every argument that isn’t “the government can’t force people into organ donation slavery” can also be dismissed out of hand as being irrelevant to the only aspect of this topic that matters.
No, a hypothetical is just helping people see a logical inconsistency. If you agree that people should be free to refuse vaccinations with no negative consequences, then you are logically consistent when you leverage the “my body, my choice” stance. Is that your stance, for vaccines? Many people in this thread insist that there should be consequences to refusing a vaccine (no interaction with society, for example), but that is not really a choice then.
Dismissing points out of hand does not dispute those stances; it does not move to convince the people that hold those stances that the stances are flawed.