[mlyle]

Eh, I do think it's being repulsed at the idea of killin' babies.

Combined with not weighting the value of the choices of women or the impact on them or their bodies very high.

Look, uh, abortion is kinda a yucky thing. There's not some bright-line moment of change and investiture with consciousness and being that happens at the moment of birth. It's only when you decide the choices and bodily autonomy of the adult woman is more important than the potential of the life growing in her that you can support abortion.

[dcow]

I have no religious affiliation beyond accepting others’ religions (I’m not atheist because ultimately atheism is overly restrictive in its worldview) and agree that abortion is way more nuanced than what modern feminists present. Personally, I’ve been on both sides of the spectrum at different points in my life. I believe I am now somewhere in the middle and the reasons are not in any way religious. They’re based on my lived experience more-so than high school ethics. But man the amount that people want to reduce this to “fuck religion” is really annoying. No one wants to admit it’s a yucky issue.

[rootusrootus]

> I’m not atheist because ultimately atheism is overly restrictive in its worldview

I don't consider myself atheist either. But I do not believe in any sort of god. I figure 'atheist' actually goes a little too far in making assumptions, so I prefer 'ignostic.'

On the bright side, people hear what they want to hear when you use that term. A good chunk of my extended family, who I otherwise quite like, are evangelical christians and not particularly tolerant of atheists (they wouldn't spit in your face, but it makes them intensely uncomfortable). They don't hear 'ignostic' they hear 'agnostic' and that is considerably less offensive to them. I do not correct their understanding, because the conflict is unnecessary and would not improve anyone's life.

> the amount that people want to reduce this to “fuck religion”

A lot of blame for this lies with religious folks trying to make laws based on their religion. I get a little irritated about that myself. Your religion is your business, but I have every right to live my life free from your religious beliefs. As soon as they started making it a core part of their political platform, it became more acceptable to adopt the "fuck religion" attitude in response.

[dcow]

What is uniquely interesting in this scenario is that there isn't any science supporting one side either. Totally agree about not pushing religious beliefs on society in the face of a rational understanding. That’s simply destructive and toxic. But in this case, we really do need to drop the rational vs religious rhetoric and acknowledge this is entirely a social issue. I think discussions would get a lot further if we were all able to frame it that way.

[calvinmorrison]

and "the gloves are off". If the entire government just spent 2 years justifying the coerced vaccination of the masses - all thought bodily autonomy thrown out for the greater good? Sure the Rightwingers are happy to play that game as well.

[rootusrootus]

IMO comparing vaccination to women's bodily autonomy is a bad faith argument. Vaccination is about protecting society -- the protection it offers individuals who get the vaccine is incidental.

Anti-abortion folks have a stronger argument, IMO, by focusing on the liberty of the unborn child. Both sides refuse to give up ground, however, for political reasons. The logical conclusion is that there is a point somewhere on the scale between 0 and 9 months where a fetus gains enough liberty to qualify for rights of its own that can be balanced against the rights of the mother. I hope some day we can come together to define that point and codify it.

[roenxi]

> IMO comparing vaccination to women's bodily autonomy is a bad faith argument.

That seems a somewhat inflammatory lead, but as far as I can tell you haven't explained or argued for it. It is obvious that the people who want to criminalise abortion believe it is about protecting society; if it were their babies they wouldn't need to criminalise it.

So far the only hard evidence about the COVID vaccines is that they offer excellent individual protection. It appears that the community protection just involves reducing the rate of spread rather than the reach, and since we're dealing with an exponential process it potentially has little practical effect. We ran a natural experiment in Australia that suggested there was no community protection effect. The spread of COVID through the community was basically instantaneous when lockdowns lifted in December [0].

[0] https://chrisbillington.net/COVID_NSW.html

[mlyle]

> to qualify for rights of its own that can be balanced against the rights of the mother.

I'm not sure how much I agree. If you were grafted to my arm and that was keeping you alive... I would think it would be within my rights to remove you.

[calvinmorrison]

Arguments don't matter, in the end, really

[mlyle]

In the long run, "in the end", arguments are all that matters.

Sure, not many mature people are convinced. But people growing up and developing their positions are influenced. And even those of us who are not fully convinced tend to build some nuance into our positions to cope with the stronger arguments.