The Politics of Life

[Mythtaken]

With the impending election looming in America, the ongoing battle between the "pro life" and the "pro choice" camps is again heating up, with plenty of new laws coming on the books in various states, and politicians dancing all around the issue. There have been a whole host of "decisions" on if and when a woman is allowed to have an abortion, with a variety of dates attached. Even frozen embryos have been dragged into the mix, with new laws claiming them to be children.

So with all this nonsense floating about, it begs the question of when does life really begin? Who gets to decide that and why?

 

[*SD*]

So with all this nonsense floating about, it begs the question of when does life really begin? Who gets to decide that and why?

There are a lot of ideas around this. Some making more sense than others, naturally. I'm very much pro-choice but this debate is barely even a thing in the UK, where I live. In the US, very different story. To me it makes little sense to refer to a zygote, which is essentially just a blob of cells as being "alive". It's something of a Sorites paradox and UK law kinda reflects this. There's a hundred rabbit holes one can go down on this topic.

Hadn't heard about the frozen embryos are children thing. I'd laugh if it weren't for the fact that there probably are politicians arguing in this vein in the US.

Quick thing - sorry it took a while for your post to appear, you weren't being ignored, we've had server problems. Maintenance is scheduled for 27/3/24 (the 27th of March 2024).

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

So with all this nonsense floating about, it begs the question of when does life really begin? Who gets to decide that and why?

Life began 3.5 billion years ago. Remember, the sperm and egg are also alive before they are fertilized. The question is malformed because answering it correctly does not answer the question that people are trying to ask.
People are trying to ask about personhood. Does a fertilized egg count as a person, meaning do they get the same protections as other people do under the law? Seeing as how one in three fertilized eggs will not implant, I feel like just defining a person as a fertilized egg is absurd. Also, remember that many forms of common contraception stop fertilized eggs from implanting.

However, I also feel that this ignores the bigger question of bodily autonomy. Essentially, if a fertilized egg is a person, does that mean that person is entitled to use someone else's body? In my opinion, bodily autonomy is a vital argument. In the same way you cannot be forced to give blood, you should not be forced to be pregnant. Consent is key.

Hadn't heard about the frozen embryos are children thing. I'd laugh if it weren't for the fact that there probably are politicians arguing in this vein in the US.

​

 

[Mythtaken]

this debate is barely even a thing in the UK, where I live. In the US, very different story. To me it makes little sense to refer to a zygote, which is essentially just a blob of cells as being "alive"

Yes, that is essentially the same story here in Canada. We have long ago come to the same conclusion, as well as the realization it is a medical issue between the woman and her physician. Essential a person is a person when they are born by either natural or artificial means.

The question is malformed because answering it correctly does not answer the question that people are trying to ask.

I agree completely, though that isn't how so-called "pro-life" Americans see it. What I find especially difficult to follow is the shear level of cognitive dissonance at play when they try to discuss the issue. The majority of American pro-lifers tend to point towards the bible for their reasoning, which makes no sense, since the bible clearly portrays life as beginning at the first breath. At the same time, those pro-life advocates are very vocal against any social programs that might aid babies (especially babies among the poor).

Also, remember that many forms of common contraception stop fertilized eggs from implanting.

Which is why many states are attempting to outlaw contraception as well.

However, I also feel that this ignores the bigger question of bodily autonomy. Essentially, if a fertilized egg is a person, does that mean that person is entitled to use someone else's body? In my opinion, bodily autonomy is a vital argument. In the same way you cannot be forced to give blood, you should not be forced to be pregnant. Consent is key.

Again, I couldn't agree more. Strangely though, when a group of pro-lifers were asked if men should be mandated to have reversible vasectomies until they were married and decided have children, the outcry against the government interfering in a man's bodily autonomy was loud and clear.

One interesting and quite funny twist on the Alabama Supreme Court decision has arisen. Several people who had frozen embryos stored (as many as 48 in one case) have applied to the government to receive their retroactive tax benefits for all their "children" causing something of a panic among legislators.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Yes, that is essentially the same story here in Canada. We have long ago come to the same conclusion, as well as the realization it is a medical issue between the woman and her physician. Essential a person is a person when they are born by either natural or artificial means.

It was settled law here until a handful of activist judges changed the law overnight, ignoring 50 years of prior court precedent on this issue.

I agree completely, though that isn't how so-called "pro-life" Americans see it.

That is because they are not pro-life. They are anti-choice.

What I find especially difficult to follow is the shear level of cognitive dissonance at play when they try to discuss the issue. The majority of American pro-lifers tend to point towards the bible for their reasoning, which makes no sense, since the bible clearly portrays life as beginning at the first breath.

This is because most Christians are unfamiliar with what the Bible says and repeat what is preached to them from the pulpit.

At the same time, those pro-life advocates are very vocal against any social programs that might aid babies (especially babies among the poor).

This is also due to a different part of modern Christian Nationalism. They like to pretend to be small government, so they will spout talking points and vote against government interventions like this in the belief that their church will step in and help with any family needs.

Which is why many states are attempting to outlaw contraception as well.

The anti-choicers want to outlaw all contraception. That includes condoms and diagrams, which prevent the fertilization of an egg. Honestly, I feel most of the anti-choicers do not understand pregnancy in the first place and believe that anything that interferes with the baby-making process is terrible. Their wanting to outlaw contraception has little to do with just outlawing the type that prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to a uterus.

Again, I couldn't agree more. Strangely though, when a group of pro-lifers were asked if men should be mandated to have reversible vasectomies until they were married and decided have children, the outcry against the government interfering in a man's bodily autonomy was loud and clear.

As I said, they pretend to be for a small government.

One interesting and quite funny twist on the Alabama Supreme Court decision has arisen. Several people who had frozen embryos stored (as many as 48 in one case) have applied to the government to receive their retroactive tax benefits for all their "children" causing something of a panic among legislators.

This is just more unforeseen (by the anti-choicers) consequences for their action of overturning Roe. What is funny is that Catholics are/were firmly against IVF because fertilized embryos would be discarded during the process. Anyone who knew anything about fertility treatments and contraception saw this coming from miles away. When the news about Alabama broke, I wondered with my friends if the judges involved in it were Catholic or just heathens who followed the logic of the law to its apparent conclusion.

However, I love seeing all the Republicans demonstrating just how little they know about IVF when it comes to all their anti-choice rhetoric.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The anti-choicers want to outlaw all contraception. That includes condoms and [diaphragms], which prevent the fertilization of an egg.

​