Quote (fender @ May 7 2022 04:02pm)
what are you on about? there is no big disagreement amongst biologists regarding the science about the different stages from conception to birth. it's not some mysterious field that awaits exploration, or anything along those lines. the abortion question is not one that can be ultimately settled through scientific discovery. there is no revelation to be made that would genuinely shock or surprise either side. the whole "what's life?" narrative is merely a semantic distraction, an attempt by anti-choicers to appeal to emotions in order to tell women what they can and can't do.
modern secular societies overwhelmingly agree that up to a certain point into a pregnancy, usually around 22 weeks, a woman's right to bodily self-determination outweighs the "rights" of a zygote / fetus, or rather doesn't warrant the state intervening and infringing upon someone's private affairs. as we're approaching likely (50+ %) viability (around 24 weeks +), the question becomes more difficult and heavily depends on the circumstances - again, i'm talking about the consensus formed in the context of modern western legal, ethical, and medical considerations, not personal opinion.
the claim that religious (mostly, sure, there might be some self-proclaimed or actual atheists who are similarly deluded, but the main driver behind the anti-choice movement is religious fundamentalism) people make is that a zygote is already so worthy of their "protection", that it's justified to strip women of their autonomy, force them to go through the physical, psychological, and financial strains of a pregnancy, in order to live according to THEIR moral beliefs. most rational thinking people disagree with that demand - even those that, like me, don't like abortions as such.
in reality, it's even worse than that though: the anti-choice movement actively and vociferously (again, there are exceptions, but i'm talking about its main drivers and lawmakers) opposes measures that would prevent unwanted pregnancies, or support pregnant women medically, financially, and structurally in order to decrease the demand for abortions. if you paid ANY attention to this issue, you'd quickly realise that the whole talk about how "precious" life is, is nothing but empty rhetoric. their legislation exclusively focuses on trying to control women's bodies - but not valuing their lives, or even just that of children born to women who did not want a child at that particular point in their lives.
Thanks for your insight.
When you say that there's no disagreement on biologists, are you saying that they agree that a human life begins at conception? My understanding so far is that, that is inconclusive amongst the scientific community but I could be wrong. Because if it is definitive, the argument shifts from, "is this a human life" to "does a human life have intrinsic value, if so, why?"
And I get what you're saying about viability. So for you personally, 24 weeks is the cut off line for abortion? Anything after that shouldn't be allowed? Or does that even matter?
And if the US was willing to really value life so it supports the mothers to be (even if they are not willing to be a mom aka keep the baby) and have a great support system not just physically, but financially (so during pregnancy, things are paid for), emotionally (during and post because postpartum is real), and spiritually (to those who choose to believe) and the adoption process is not a shamed based but almost like a courageous choice base, at that point, you'd be okay with banning of abortion? (Okay, to be fair, even as I typed it out, I laughed at how the US is NOT going to get there practically never lol but humor me).
Sorry for all the questions, once again, I'm trying to learn so I have questions.