•

The American Conservative: It’s Not the Pro-Life Argument That’s Losing

It’s Not the Pro-Life Argument That’s Losing - The American Conservative

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/its-not-the-pro-life-argument-thats-losing/

Ohio’s new pro-death constitution is evidence that pro-life leaders need to get back to basics.

It’s Not the Pro-Life Argument That’s Losing - The American Conservative

J.D. Vance, the junior U.S. senator from Ohio, zeroed in on this in a social media post on Wednesday: “We've spent so much time winning a legal argument on abortion that we've fallen behind on the moral argument,” he wrote.

Vance is right.

15 comments

spacecowboy

•

How’s about you just mind your own fucking business and stop telling women what to do with their own bodies? When does that start?

PizzaMane

•

we’ve fallen behind on the moral argument

Because there is no such argument. Nobody has the right to anybody else's body.

BearOfaTime

•

Exactly.

Which is why murdering babies is wrong.

BigMacHole

•

So you agree we need to ban guns, implement universal healthcare, feed kids in school and provide parents with time off with wages to protect their newborns? Or do babies stop mattering once they come out of the vagina?

PizzaMane

•

Which is why murdering babies is wrong.

Just by definition, you are mislead. Fetuses are not babies. An abortion happens to a fetus, typically at around 8 weeks. 9 out of 10 abortions happen in the first 12 weeks, which is nothing close to a baby.

Second, because nobody has the right to anybody else's body, the fetus can't use the woman's organs. We don't use dead body organs without permission. At the bare fucking minimum women should have the same right as a dead body, which means abortion is morally permissible. If they don't want a tenant, then there's an eviction so to speak.

spacecowboy

•

Oh fuck off, once that “baby” you’re so worried about is born and in the world you give zero fucks about it.

spark947

•

Please take this BS to another lemmy instance. Its going to be a lot of people viewing by all who don't agree with this a-scientific nonsense and will just downvote it.

PeepinGoodArgs

•

What I love about this argument, that conservatives aren't making the moral case for banning abortion, is that it's just not true. The premiere anti-abortion think tank Family Research Council only makes the moral case for banning abortion. The real problem is that the moral case is made in terms of Christianity:

God is the author of life, and the taking of life through abortion constitutes an assault on the image of God imprinted on every person (Psalm 139:13-16)

Only problem is that Americans are decreasingly Christian. The Christian ideology doesn't have the same pull it used to. Even when it did have greater pull in the 1970s, Roe v. Wade was decided. So, the Christian moral case for abortion probably isn't that effective, even at its best.

And a more secular moral case against abortion, that it's harmful to women physically and psychologically, is scientifically wrong. The only way to really overcome this problem is to pull a page out of the Handbook of Tobacco and Fossil Fuels and create their own crappy scientific studies that work backwards from the conclusion to manufacture data, i.e: not science.

Historical_General

•

I'm pretty sure there's a case in the Bible where abortion is basically recommended when the wife cheats on you? I remember something about a noxious potion being taken to kill the illegitimate offspring.

ImplyingImplications

•

You're thinking of the Ordeal of the Bitter Water which is described as a way to judge if a pregnant woman has cheated on her husband. If accused by her husband, the woman would be forced to drink unclean water. If the baby died but the woman lived, it was deemed she was raped. If the baby and woman both die, then she purposefully cheated. If they both lived, the woman's husband was the father. It was thought that God would save the woman/child if they were innocent and murder them if they weren't.

God is alright with killing unborn babies and pregnant women if certain conditions are met. Here's a long list of bible verses where God deems children under a month old to be valueless, miscarriage as a form of punishment, and killing of pregnant women justifiable.

SirToxicAvenger

•

sounds like the test for witchcraft

PizzaMane

•

It is true, the bible has what is essentially an instruction for an abortion potion.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205%3A11-31&version=NIV

MomoTimeToDie

•

"scientifically wrong" is just a fundamentally bullshit claim. Questions of value, by their nature, are not resolvable by science.

PeepinGoodArgs

•

Whether abortions bans cause harm is well-within the scientific realm. You might disagree with what "harm" means, but that's not what you're arguing. And even if you were, I'm not sure how you'd argue that closing abortion clinics, which often offer other services than just abortions, is not harmful.

But feel free to make the argument, I suppose.

PizzaMane

•

It seems you missed the first half of that sentence, which was not referring to a question of value:

And a more secular moral case against abortion, that it’s harmful to women physically and psychologically