You are way off base, but I doubt telling you this will convince you. I am pro choice; I already said this. My point is that this is a debate. There is no objective right or wrong answer. You must convince people that your stance is the just and correct one; and I don't know many people who were convinced by having their stance dismissed without debate.
Setting up a Sophie's Choice does not support what you think you're saying. If I crafted some extreme consequence for choosing to have an abortion-- while still allowing it, would you support that?
The underlying presumption with "my body, my choice" is that there aren't applied consequences for making the choice, no?
It is not really on topic but "pro life" is propaganda. It's a debate between giving a pregnant person the choice to have an abortion, or not. You're also doing the same thing I was complaining about. No one who is pro choice thinks "we're all just clumps of cells".
Your stance is not incompatible with mine; my meta stance is solely that there is a discussion to have. As opposed to the person in this thread pretending like it's an objective fact instead of a societal judgement.
I do not specifically carve out an exception for late term abortion because no one is actually waiting 6 months before deciding whether to carry to term. The people getting late term abortions are doing it because they must due to medical reasons.
To demand silence on something so important to them is a little reminiscent of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to other aspects of people’s identities.
The big difference in the room is that DADT was regarding something intrinsic to a person, and religion is a choice. I see fewer problems when it comes to telling people to keep their personal choices to themselves. Not in "it should be illegal" but in "it should be socially shunned". Like, treat religion like you would a hot new MLM that will definitely get you rich while working from home 4 hours a week. If that's what you want, fine, but telling people about it in a public setting is uncomfortable and awkward and I really wish you just wouldn't. If you get what I mean.
I am going to probably regret this, but this kind of reductionist summary of the very real conflict of priorities does not help the situation. First let's get my conclusion out of the way, I'm pro-choice. I am also an atheist-- I will immediately disregard any argument that invokes a magic spirit living inside a meat suit. However, even with "MaGiC" off the board, there is some argument to be made about doing harm to future people (and a zygote is a future person) and deserves a real discussion.
We already do things that restrict what people can do based on harm it might do in the future-- to people that aren't even born yet. If being unborn really counted for nothing, we wouldn't have any laws that restricted action based on long-term effect. (For example: laws to prevent climate change, to prevent cluster bombing, etc) So clearly, whether or not a person has been born yet doesn't immediately disqualify them from protection under the law.
The abortion debate is one of those uncommon instances where two conflicting rights meet. The proverbial "your right to swing your arm stops at my nose" situation. We have done this every time there is such a conflict. Your right to life ends when you attempt to end the life of someone else (self defense), for example. We, as a society, get tomust decide whose rights are more important in the abortion scenario, but at no point are we saying that both parties don't have rights. One just necessarily must supersede the other.
I personally believe that there is far more risk with giving the government the power to force a pregnant person to undergo a risky medical procedure against their will than in ending the life of a person who has not been born yet. There are some powers I think we would be foolish to grant the government, and "forced birth" is definitely one of them. However, it's important to keep in mind that this decision isn't a law of nature-- no more than "killing in self defense is allowed" is a law of nature; these are societal judgments. It's plausible that a society could make a different judgement; one where even killing someone in self-defense was viewed as a criminal act. In fact, you probably believe this to a degree when it comes to "stand your ground" laws, as implementing in places like Florida or Texas.
It's important to keep in mind that there is no objectively right or wrong answer; if there were, it wouldn't be a conflict point. It necessitates a dialog to convince people to agree with you, and dismissing the argument as foolish doesn't do that, which means it will remain an "undecided" conflict point for longer than it needs to.
Sorry about the unsolicited rant. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk?
I had a fair amount of karma over there and it didn't seem to grant me any special privileges that I could see. The issue for lemmy, is that the data is there, being federated. Maybe all the major platforms can be convinced to cap the top and the bottom, to prevent "karma whores". Say, a range from 100 to -100?
I have to admit that I always thought she was agnostic, if not atheist, from that Pope stuff.
I idly wonder why a gay feminist would convert to Islam. Aren't those things incompatible? Is this my ignorance showing? Are there sects of Islam that are more open minded, like there are sects of Christianity?
quote me a passage from a popular Sarah Silverman book
Response:
As an AI language model, my knowledge was last updated in September 2021, and I do not have access to real-time data, including specific passages from books released after that date. Up until my last update, Sarah Silverman, the American comedian, actress, and writer, had not released a book.
However, Sarah Silverman has written a memoir titled "The Bedwetter: Stories of Courage, Redemption, and Pee," which was published in 2010. Since I don't have the contents of the book available to me directly, I can't provide a specific passage from it.
If you're interested in reading something from the book, I recommend checking it out from your local library or bookstore. Her memoir contains personal anecdotes and humorous stories, reflecting her unique comedic style and life experiences.
I think this is nonsense, but you're saying the issue is that it doesn't use quotes when someone asks it to quote a passage from her book? Is that true?
I mostly use kbin; how do you block communities or instances in lemmy? I didn't see an obvious way to do this, but I am often oblivious so that's not as conclusive as I'd wish it to be, haha
You are way off base, but I doubt telling you this will convince you. I am pro choice; I already said this. My point is that this is a debate. There is no objective right or wrong answer. You must convince people that your stance is the just and correct one; and I don't know many people who were convinced by having their stance dismissed without debate.