They’re not providing counter viewpoints They’re just being intransitive. There is no such thing as the force everyone to have abortions viewpoint so they are arguing in bad faith.
A lot of their comments are completely nonsensical as well, e.g.
When there exist people unironically making the argument that factory farming is good actually because any life is better than no life
I mean what the hell has that got to do with anything? We’re supposed to be talking about the morality of abortions and they throw in animal cruelty in there as if that’s some kind of counterpoint. Also I don’t think literally anyone thinks that factory farming is moral because otherwise the animals would never have existed, I’ve never heard of anyone espouse that view. Not that it would matter even if they did, because it’s got literally nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I actually have heard people espouse that view, but I haven’t gone further than that as it’s usually coming from people who don’t really want to debate animal ethics.
It’s technically related since someone might believe that creating life and avoiding death is more important than any amount of suffering. It makes endorsing factory farming and anti-abortion logically consistent. But it’s a technicality because I don’t think people have really thought that hard about it, ergo I agree with you it’s nonsensical.
I thought their first and even second paragraphs are reasonable. They were not advocating for forced abortions or post birth abortions. I’m not clear on your objection.
Also just generally in this thread, I’m seeing the pro life camp being boiled down to “anti choice”. Sure, that isn’t untrue. To restrict abortion rights is to restrict the choices of women. And to put them at medical risk in some cases, and to potentially bring a child into a world of misery.
But if you’re starting from the premise of “it’s hard to say when life starts, we have to pick an arbitrary point, and I pick conception” then it’s logically consistent to call it murder after that point, and it’s reasonable to weigh the abortive rights of women against the morality of murder in that context.
To be clear, I don’t think life-worth-protecting starts at conception. I’m playing devil’s advocate here. I just wish that us in the pro-choice camp acknowledged the problem as not so simple.
They’re not providing counter viewpoints They’re just being intransitive. There is no such thing as the force everyone to have abortions viewpoint so they are arguing in bad faith.
A lot of their comments are completely nonsensical as well, e.g.
I mean what the hell has that got to do with anything? We’re supposed to be talking about the morality of abortions and they throw in animal cruelty in there as if that’s some kind of counterpoint. Also I don’t think literally anyone thinks that factory farming is moral because otherwise the animals would never have existed, I’ve never heard of anyone espouse that view. Not that it would matter even if they did, because it’s got literally nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I actually have heard people espouse that view, but I haven’t gone further than that as it’s usually coming from people who don’t really want to debate animal ethics.
It’s technically related since someone might believe that creating life and avoiding death is more important than any amount of suffering. It makes endorsing factory farming and anti-abortion logically consistent. But it’s a technicality because I don’t think people have really thought that hard about it, ergo I agree with you it’s nonsensical.
I thought their first and even second paragraphs are reasonable. They were not advocating for forced abortions or post birth abortions. I’m not clear on your objection.
Also just generally in this thread, I’m seeing the pro life camp being boiled down to “anti choice”. Sure, that isn’t untrue. To restrict abortion rights is to restrict the choices of women. And to put them at medical risk in some cases, and to potentially bring a child into a world of misery.
But if you’re starting from the premise of “it’s hard to say when life starts, we have to pick an arbitrary point, and I pick conception” then it’s logically consistent to call it murder after that point, and it’s reasonable to weigh the abortive rights of women against the morality of murder in that context.
To be clear, I don’t think life-worth-protecting starts at conception. I’m playing devil’s advocate here. I just wish that us in the pro-choice camp acknowledged the problem as not so simple.