This is an unpopular view among my fellow liberals but think twice before assuming a pro-lifer is anti female sexual freedom. They may be but there is also an intuitive objection to abortion which is on the very liberal care/harm foundation. Note I said 'intuitive', not rational.
-
-
Even setting sentiment aside, it’s not at all clear to me that the universe in which ‘it’s just a bundle of unwanted cells’ is ethically or morally superior to one in which ‘it’s a complete person with all attendant rights’.
-
Might be factually superior and this should inform our ethics? http://helenpluckroseblogs.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/my-position-on-abortion.html …
-
Here’s a brief expansion of my thoughts.https://twitter.com/sainttzu/status/954785526841823233 …
-
That seems to be more intuitive and pragmatic than ethical re: the rights of the unborn.
-
Yes, you’re right. I should have emphasized the point that it’s unclear to me, full stop. And that’s because I think our moral and ethical intuitions don’t function well at the extremes.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I meant the non religious are unlikely to be against sexual freedom. It’s probably different in the US since religiosity is rampant. I do however come across non religious people who dog whistle by saying if you can’t be responsible, don’t have sex. It has a tinge of sex negative
-
Yes. I come across them too and they are mostly American but not always. Sometimes the motivation definitely is sexual puritanism but sometimes its intuitive and irrational empathy with a cluster of cells seen as a baby.
-
Yes, I definitely agree.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.