I agree with the result of your conclusion but I disagree with your central premise. We do have laws to protect rights in the future. Those laws, though, don’t protect individual rights, they protect the rights of the society as a whole.

I the case of the fetus, it is arguable as to when the fetus gains rights of its own, but I don’t think that a newly fertilized egg immediately gains rights. Something like the morning after pill, abortion at 6 weeks, or even abortion at 12 or 20 weeks doesn’t constitute “murder in self defense” in my mind. I think there is a line to be drawn somewhere before that even becomes a consideration.

Once you do cross that line, though, we do get to your argument and your logic holds I think.

There is certainly a right answer, my body, my choice. Get out of here trying to reason with the pro life side. There is no discussion. There is no compromise, there is no trying to understand those fools. My body, my choice no more discussion. That’s all the discussion we need

Thank you for speaking your truth. We need more of this and less careless disregard for the beliefs of others. Understanding is the only way to grow as a species. Calling a life a clump of cells may be true in some senses but not in all. If you think we’re all just clumps of cells that’s fine, but that’s not what the pro lifers see. Disregarding that fact only weakens your position and strengthens your “opposition’s”.

Don’t think about it as doing harm to a future person. Think about it as doing harm to a future dead corpse. Both have the exact same logical reasoning.

So having an abortion is just getting them to the corpse stage faster. And really what’s the harm in that? Certainly it’s much less harm than forcing someone to do something with their body that they don’t want to.

I respectfully disagree

this kind of reductionist summary of the very real conflict of priorities does not help the situation.

scientifically speaking, it’s 100% accurate. Just because imaginary sky daddy tells some people that it’s already a thinking, breathing, living person doesn’t matter.

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)

We don’t really though. There are no real punishments for any of those actions, or anything to actually stop people from doing them. Yes, we do have laws saying you can go to jail if you do drugs while pregnant, BUT that’s because there is an INTENTION to carry to term, and have an actual human happen, that will be great affected by those drinking/drug uses during pregnancy. If you are so early on that you can/are aborting, SCIENTIFICALLY it’s a clump of cells, with no chance of being a human at that time.

The abortion debate is one of those uncommon instances where two conflicting rights meet.

yeah… not really. If I’m forced to carry the parasite, I have the only say in what happens to it. I’m a living breathing already existing human being. The cells are not, and they cannot live outside of my body, so please take them out, and let them do their thing. Please let’s see what happens.

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.

nature is pretty indiscriminate in what it kills, but humans have added their own beliefs, which vary wildly from location to location. Regardless, the government and especially religion should have zero say. Abortion is a medical procedure, whether you, imaginary sky daddy, or some religious zealot thinks otherwise, and should be treated as such.

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.

Not related, so not really relevant to this topic, but generally, as far as I can tell, those laws are simply and excuse to kill for the sake of killing, and because the person already WANTED to.

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.

Except scientifically, and objectively, there is a right answer. Certain people just don’t like it, but it doesn’t change the reality of it. That’s like saying I don’t like religion so no one can practice it. Doesn’t work, does it?

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.

I’m pretty sure, based on historical data, and observation, we all know that a respectful discourse isn’t going to happen, and if it did, it wouldn’t sway the party in the wrong. Also, at this point, I do not believe there are any “undecided” people left. Either you follow reality and science, or imaginary sky daddy. Those seem to be the only two options left in US society. Other countries see the value, and necessity, and treat abortion as such, but we aren’t one of those countries.

There’s no real conflict of rights, unless you believe that people should be forced by the government to be live organ donors. That “future person” has no more rights to a woman’s uterus than I do as an adult to my mother’s blood & organs if I get into a car accident.

I think it prudent to examine the risks associated with being born to a person who would have chosen abortion had it been safe, free, and legal. The kids one chose to have deserve to grow up surrounded by wanted and cared for peers as much as the kids one would not choose to have deserve to be born into a loving and prepared family.

No one chooses to be born. It’s literally impossible to determine whether an unborn human would prefer to be born without knowing anything about the existence that awaits them. That is why we put the focus on the person who is already in this world, and their choice about their body.

Unfortunately, this is the fundamental “weakness” of the pro choice side of the argument: it’s nuanced. And apparently ain’t nobody got time for nuance. The anti-choice argument is quick and easy and requires no time to process, discuss, or work through. “Abortion == baby murder == bad.”

It’s not a surprise that the only voices you hear from the religious circles, at least the Christian ones, are Catholics and Evangelicals. Those groups often tend to deal with nuance by ignoring it altogether. Mainline Protestants, not so much. We – and I’m saying this as a Mainline Protestant – live and breathe nuance. Sometimes to the point where we seem to be drowning in it. There isn’t an army of Presbyterians, Lutherans, or Episcopalians taking to the streets in support of abortion rights because… Well, it’s complicated.

Obviously I can’t speak for everyone in those circles but the fact is that probably most Christians, even “liberal” (and I dislike that term for it’s inaccuracy) ones don’t love abortion. From my perspective it’s perceived as a medical procedure that is sometimes necessary even if it has potential for abuse. I would expect a lot of Mainline Protestants are pro-choice but the thoughts on abortion are probably so diverse and nuanced that it’s hard to distill down to a coherent message.

It’s not a Ted Talk, it’s a forced birth argument churlishly hiding under a false cloak of “pro-choice atheist.”

It doesn’t matter whether you believe in God or not, or in souls, there’s no actual valid argument for the “rights” of a zygote.

And you’re incredibly dismissive of the rights of the person hosting that zygote and having it feed off their life-force.

At least 1 in 4 of pregnancies abort all on their own. Until recently we didn’t attack people when they failed to prevent that. But now hospitals are telling women they have to wait until they’re dying of sepsis to end a pregnancy with a fetus that’s dying all on its own. That’s where your argument leads and we’re seeing it in real deaths.

You’re trying to get the camel’s nose under the tent of women’s bodily autonomy, and I’m calling you out on it.

Same Old Bullshit. Same Old Misogyny.

I just hate the “a zygote is a future person” argument, because by that logic my jizz is a future person and every time I jizz that doesn’t result in a pregnancy has the same weight an abortion carry’s. I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why we stop the abortion claim at when the jizz enters the uterus. I think there’s something to be said at making it illegal after a certain trimester, but I don’t know where I’d even put that line.

That’s in violation of the commerce clause of the constitution

That’s why you can buy weed in Colorado and not be prosecuted in Texas, as an example.