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.

  • MomoTimeToDie
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

    • PizzaMan@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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

        • PizzaMan@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          “Is X safe?” isn’t a question of value. It is a scientifically verifiable question. You need to actually read.

          • MomoTimeToDie
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            “harm” is a question of value. The fact you pretend otherwise means your either too stupid or too dishonest to be worth talking to further.

            • PizzaMan@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              “harm” is a question of value

              No it isn’t, it’s objectively measurable. If you lose 3L of blood, the harms associated can be objectively measured. If you lose a limb, the harms are objectively measurable. If you smoke a pack a day, the decrease in your lifespan is objectively measurable.

              What the fuck are you talking about.

                • PizzaMan@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Clearly I thought to highly of a rat like you.

                  Jesus you’re a stupid sack of shit.

                  You need to take a look in the mirror if you can’t go two seconds without resorting to ad hominems.

                  If there is a stupid sack of shit rat among the two of us, it clearly isn’t me.

                  “harm” is fundamentally a subjective concept.

                  In the same way septic tanks “subjectively” smell bad. Get a grip and learn to care about something other than semantics.

        • Throwaway@lemm.eeM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just a heads up, using the r-slur is against instance rules. Please edit your comment.