Who would possibly say that Tucker Carlson didn’t always have the best of intentions using this exact same method?
Tucker uses whataboutism. He would never strive for logical consistency; that would ruin his entire stance. You do want logical consistency, right? That is something you strive for? Or are you like Tucker?
Government workers and military should absolutely be required to choose between vaccination and being let go. That does not mean that women should be forced into organ donation slavery by the government, and you continuing to try to link the two is absolutely JAQing yourself the fuck off.
It means that "my body, my choice" isn't the argument people pretend it is. Because in some situations, "my body, my choice" doesn't apply. So now you need to defend why it applies to pregnant people and not anti-vaxxers. Logically. And you know what? I bet you could do it if you really tried-- but what's the point? Why bother with the "my body, my choice" defense at all, if the defense itself needs a defense?
No one who’s in favor of government-forced organ donation slavery is going to change their mind.
This is untrue. After Roe was struck down, polls indicated rising support in nationally-available abortion. People can change their mind, but it's very unlikely if no one bothers to try to change it.
I haven't dismissed anything, except religious arguments to remove choice. I'm saying that "it's just a bunch of cells" or "my body, my choice" are not sound arguments. A clump of cells can have rights. Rights are a human invention, not a natural thing that exists independent of humans; we can literally give anything we want legal rights, including a clump of cells. So, you can't simply dismiss the entire concept of a zygote having rights; that is something you need to defend. The zygote certainly has rights if someone attacked a pregnant person and caused a miscarriage; they could be charged with murder. No?
However, as I go on to say, I think it's entirely possible to grant a zygote rights, while also acknowledging that a pregnant person's right to bodily autonomy supersedes those rights. Similar to how someone has a right to life until they try to kill someone else, in which case, we say the rights of the attacked take precedence over the rights of the attacker. Hopefully no one believes the attacker no longer has rights. Does that make sense?
You replied to this with a hypothetical about landmines while ignoring that this comment is talking about the right of the mother to bodily autonomy vs. the rights of a potential person to life.
That hypothetical was to show that we do concern ourselves with the consequences of our actions, even if those consequences affect people who have not yet been born. And it's true. We do this. So saying "the zygote hasn't been born-- it doesn't matter what happens to it" (paraphrasing) is not a given statement-- it must be shown why we shouldn't care about what happens to it, when we do care about unborn or future people in other instances.
you’re basically saying you’re not pro-choice if you believe a zygote has the same right to life that a mother has to bodily autonomy.
This can't be further from the truth. We make nuanced decisions about this all the time-- you're not allowed to kill someone, but if they're trying to kill you, you are then allowed to kill them to defend yourself. A person that punches a pregnant person in the stomach and causes them to miscarry can be charged with murder. It doesn't matter if the pregnant person was punched on the way to an abortion. The question isn't really (and never should have been) whether a zygote has rights. The question is defending why a pregnant person's rights should supersede the rights of the zygote.
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.
If being inside the person did not matter, then remove the fetus and bring them to term outside the body as this question seem to imply this to be a possibility.
You know, being pro choice myself, I am aghast at how terrible arguments from the seemingly informed and educated people in this thread are. Truly, it's been cringe-worthy for a while now.
We are discussing who or what society can give rights to. I pointed out that clearly a zygote is within the realm of possibility, because whether you like it or not, a corporation has rights. (note; this does not make a corporation a "person"). So, society can give a zygote rights-- the question becomes if they should. I don't see how this question can be addressed by the physical location of any given zygote. You seem to disagree-- so explain why. Why is a zygote off-limits for having rights?
because unless that thing they're told to do involves having specific sex organs, it has nothing to do with their sex. Like, if it says women should stay at home and care for the kids, while men go work and earn the money-- that's bigoted; there's no real reason for that except that it results in compliant, financially dependent women. Abuse flourishes in this type of scenario.
That's a cop out that tells me you can't explain or back up your assertion.
Let me add more for you to work with: Society grants rights to corporations-- things that are abstract ideas and do not exist in the physical world at all-- so clearly society can grants rights to a zygote, if it deems it prudent. You are arguing that they should not do that. Now, explain why.
I don't have enough knowledge to discuss the ins and outs of your religion, but I can point out that your use of misogyny seems very narrowly defined, perhaps solely to fit your stance. Telling a woman "you aren't allowed to do that because you're better suited for this" is misogyny. I don't know for a fact that this is what you mean, so clarification wouldn't be remiss, but I suspect due to your wording that your religion does tell women what they can and can't do.
The fetus is growing exclusively within the body of the mother.
Does being inside the pregnant person matter? If so, why? You're trying to convince me that a zygote deserves no legal rights (remember, my stance is that this argument is nonsense and that pro-choice is 100% compatible with also giving a zygote rights). Corporations have rights, and they don't even exist anywhere. So clearly society can give rights to whatever it decides to-- why should a zygote be one of those things?
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.
And your hypothetical uses right wing talking points to justify your position, and turns carrying a child to term into a moral obligation in the process.
Can you do me a solid and quote the exact place where I did this? It wasn't my intent and I want to take care not to make the same error in the future.
People disagreeing with you are pointing out that you’re comparing the rights of actual living people to the rights of ‘potential people’.
Yes, I am saying that you can still be pro-choice while believing that a zygote has rights.
I'm not sure this is true (keep in mind: weak grasp). This 10% would push websites from specifically blocking untrusted clients-- but if they got rid of the 5%, it would not magically change all the websites to block untrusted clients. They'd still need to update to do this.
I don't want to come off like I'm defending this though-- I really just don't know enough to say.
I see this sentiment pop up for often than I'd like. Are you implying that the only people worth protecting are people that can articulate that they need protection? Surely not (I sure hope not!) so what are you implying here? Silence is acceptance?
Tucker uses whataboutism. He would never strive for logical consistency; that would ruin his entire stance. You do want logical consistency, right? That is something you strive for? Or are you like Tucker?
It means that "my body, my choice" isn't the argument people pretend it is. Because in some situations, "my body, my choice" doesn't apply. So now you need to defend why it applies to pregnant people and not anti-vaxxers. Logically. And you know what? I bet you could do it if you really tried-- but what's the point? Why bother with the "my body, my choice" defense at all, if the defense itself needs a defense?
This is untrue. After Roe was struck down, polls indicated rising support in nationally-available abortion. People can change their mind, but it's very unlikely if no one bothers to try to change it.