It's easy to have empathy for people like you or that you agree with, but the real test is having empathy for those who aren't / you don't.
I'm neither Indian nor American, but just my impressions as an outside observer of both countries: in the US, the liberal-conservative divide on social issues and religion really latched on to the topic of abortion, in a way in which it did in few other countries (even most other countries with a traditionally Christian majority). The same divide absolutely exists in India, but it has tended to focus on other political issues instead – relations with religious minorities (especially Hindu-Muslim relations), the eating of beef, religious nationalism (Hindutva) vs secularism, citizenship and immigration (see the Citizenship Amendment Act controversy). Conservative Hindus and conservative Christians actually have rather similar views on the morality of abortion – the difference is not so much in the underlying ethics, rather what to prioritise in translating one's ethical views into public policy.
I think, it may be less that Indian society has "come to the conclusion" – more simply that religious conservatives have let the secular liberals have their way on that particular issue, because they've got other issues they'd rather spend their political capital on. Another big difference, is that in India criminal law is a federal not state responsibility, so the issue ends up being addressed once at the national level, instead of separately in each state in the US (especially in this new constitutional situation, but that was already happening to a lesser extent under the previous one.)
The reductionism is a necessary part of online forum based discourse. No one has the time to engage in hours long holistic discussions on a topic. A comment can at most aspire to capture 1 point well, and reductionism is the act of identifying the one act that has a disproportionate importance within the discussion.
Speaking abstractly about an unquantifiable rights allows you to pat your own back, but such discussions turn into ingroup signaling and adhominems instead of leading to productive discussion.
Most Indians come from a scarcity economy where bad decisions are catastrophic. This means that you must have skin in the game when championing an idea, because failure means starvation.(allow me some hyperbole). The society doesn't suffer delusion for too long.
Abortion rights are good. Yes, I believe that too. Republicans are actively interfering with women's control over their own bodies and that bad. Yes, I agree there too. Throw in specific anecdotes to appear nuanced.
Now what ? You still need to address the elephant in the room. Indians might point to it a little 'austistically', but it is an elephant, in your room. The nuance can wait.
I don't want to personally attack anyone but I know a number of first generation Indian immigrants. They're great people but all of them seem to reject the conservative view of American politics (the one held overwhelmingly by the people who lived here before) as "backwards." It might be because of their experiences in India, I don't know. It's really frustrating though to have people come into your country and try to change things like that while calling you stupid for protesting it. Tradition often exists for a reason and it can take a lot of work and empathy to unwind that. If you're going to come into a new country and participate in their politics you should work hard to make sure you understand their tradition (and I recognize that's hard, I don't blame immigrants for not doing since I would probably do the same, but it's really frustrating to see it over and over again and that's why I call it out here occasionally.)
EDIT: I can back up my personal experience with statistics [1] Although interestingly enough it says that later descendants tend to be even more left leaning.
This a million times. They also frequently suffer from "Engineer's Syndrome":
https://ask.metafilter.com/297591/Origin-of-the-term-Enginee...
That's unfairly dismissing the possibility that a pro-life position could be motivated by empathy for the unborn, who are completely powerless.
We can do better than demonizing people who disagree.
That’s it. There is no requirement to meet some perceived bar of empathy beyond that for this to be a good faith argument.
“I bet you think shooting innocent people in the head is wrong, but yet you don’t volunteer at the soup kitchen every weekend, so do you ACTUALLY care about innocent people or are you just trying to control others?” Do you see how that’s a ridiculous non-sequitur? That’s the argument you just made against pro life people.
"pro-life" really isn't as simple as you're making it sound. Only something like 15-18% of Americans support a total ban on abortion with no exceptions. So if we're limiting "pro-life" to only that position, then it's by definition a pretty extreme position, in fact most people would call it ridiculous: it's so extreme that it's very easy to ridicule.
If we widen a little to allow exceptions, well is that really "pro-life" anymore? Then you get into situations where you have to say, "well I think it's a life, therefore ending that life is killing, but the pregnant person will die if forced to carry the fetus to term, so... I guess killing is OK?". It's pretty weird.
Further, if the goal of pro-life Americans is to lower the number of abortions, here are policies we know work:
- sex education
- access to contraception
- support for parents and children (financial, educational, medical/mental health)
Oddly very very few pro-life Americans support any of this, which forces us to question their motives.
This Supreme Court has also just thrown out Miranda rights out the window and stomped on New York’s attempt to limit concealed weapon carries.
States rights my foot!
It’s unfair that Obama couldn’t even get Merrick Garland appointed with two terms in office, but Trump GOT THREE JUSTICES JAMMED THROUGH IN ONE TERM! Unprecedented and dangerous. They all lied to congress about their intentions during confirmation too. Immoral!
You will surely reap the whirlwind from what you sowed
You can have a deep respect for innocent life and not be willing or able to spend weekends in a soup kitchen. You can't have a deep respect for innocent life while working to keep innocent lives from being able to survive.
"Baby murder is wrong" unless it's murder by exposure because the child was homeless, "screw the homeless!" the pro-life say or by starvation because screw the hungry! or by cancer, because screw the sick if they can't afford obscene medical costs! Pro-life people generally, don't care at all about the life of babies. They don't even care about murder. If baby food companies are killing kids by poisoning them with heavy metals they'll still decry any government regulations that would prevent that or hold baby food companies accountable. The Free Market can murder babies all day long. School shootings? No, we can't have sensible gun control laws proven to work in basically every developed nation around the globe! The pro-life say we just have live with those murders, nothing can be done! So tragic!
They want to claim the moral high ground but they are buried deep under their own filth.
- WIC (https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic)
- Food Stamps (SNAP - https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program)
- Medicaid (Health care for poor people) https://www.medicaid.gov/
- Section 8 subsidized housing (https://www.benefits.gov/benefit/710)I believe this is what OP is referring to - the same people who supposedly believe in the sanctity of human life are also the first to cut any programs that support it. So it's difficult to take their "pro-life" arguments in good faith.
> That’s it. There is no requirement to meet some perceived bar of empathy beyond that for this to be a good faith argument.
You seem to be saying that because the argument is simple, it's in good faith, but this is not how good faith arguments work, nor is it aligned with the common understanding of "good faith".
Pregnancy is not simple. The circumstances surrounding conception are often not simple. The post-birth reality for many kids is anything but simple. Our medical/scientific understanding of the development of a fetus is anything but simple.
To simply ignore the 2nd and 3rd order effects that result from the "simple" position of a pro life person is to willfully ignore the complexity of this issue. This willful ignorance by definition renders the argument unqualified to be considered good faith.
The simplicity of an argument is not an excuse for ignoring the complexity of the issue. In general, a "good faith" argument is built from a foundation of common understanding between all involved parties. A good faith argument acknowledges complexities and offers its own solutions. A good faith argument isn't made by covering one's ears and pretending those complexities don't exist.
To claim that "X argument is good faith because it's simple" is in itself a bad faith argument, or at best, uninformed about what good faith is generally expected to mean in discourse.
Exactly when it stops being a bundle of cells that can be removed without thought or empathy and becomes a "baby about to be born" where it should not be treated so negligently is in my mind the real question here. And don't ask me to tell you where that line is, because I have no idea.
I just hate that there is no room for nuance on this topic, no matter which "side" you talk to.
I avoid that issue entirely by leaving it as a matter of viability. As I've said elsewhere: As long as the mother's body is needed to sustain the life of the child, that life is subject to her whims. Her house. Her rules. The moment it can be removed and sustained without her, she should no longer have the right to abort it, only to surrender it.
It doesn't matter if it's a baby or just a clump of cells, if it's literally living in and feeding off of another living person that person should have a right to decide to continue or to stop allowing that. The child's right to exist against the wishes of its mother start as soon as it can do so without her.
-- Bill Hicks, 1993
If it were possible to prevent deaths of old age or to resurrect the dead, would you be against it?
"Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. You ever see it, it's like a civil war, isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent! They are totally divided on abortion! It's unbelievable! Some of my friends, for instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Other of my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks. How are we going to come to a consensus? You ought to hear the arguments around my house; "they're annoying, they're idiots, they're evil, they're fucks!" Brothers, sisters, come together! Can't we once just join hands and think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?" -- Bill Hicks, 1993
The parent didn't claim a lack of empathy for all
That's an extremely strong statement. It's the kind of thing someone firmly ensconced in a bubble would say. Is what you say true, or do you just lack the imagination or empathy to think of one?
All this says is: "What you are saying could or could not be true."
Why write so much to say so little?
If you think they're "ensconced in a bubble", say it. If you think they "lack ... imagination" or empathy", then say it.
Don't do this motte and bailey stuff of: "have you considered that you sounds like someone who's wrong?"
You didn't understand what I was attempting, and proceeded project some other intention onto me.
> Don't do this motte and bailey stuff of: "have you considered that you sounds like someone who's wrong?"
Your paraphrase is a misreading.
You shouldn't lecture people about how they should say things when you can only speculate without much basis about what they're actually trying to do.
>That's an extremely strong statement. It's the kind of thing someone firmly ensconced in a bubble would say. Is what you say true, or do you just lack the imagination or empathy to think of one?
was trying to do, and this comment hasn't really made it any clearer. Can you explain it explicitly?
You would have to be "firmly ensconced in a bubble" to think you have the right to force a women to carry their rapists baby. Or to even think you have the right to tell a women what to do with her body in the first place.
You know, there are a lot of pro-life women. Do you think they have those beliefs because they hate themselves? Abortion is a complicated issue, it's only "really simple" if you ignore a bunch of stuff and/or fill your head with slogans.
You'd be on firmer ground if you said something along the lines of "there is no valid pro-life position [for me]."
Yes I do think they hate themselves, or at least hate their sex, their world or their (nonexistent) God. It is intrinsic to the rights of women to do what they want to do with their own body. I accept that a anti-abortion woman does not want to have an abortion herself. I accept that a pro-abortion woman does want an abortion.
Its a complicated issue only to the parties involved. Lets not make it more complicated by taking away autonomy.
I think there is a deep clash of worldviews here. Some people view individual autonomy, and especially bodily autonomy, as among the most cherished and sacred of values – an absolute which should never be compromised. Other people, while they don't view individual autonomy as worthless, they don't put it as high in their hierarchy of values, so they are open to the idea that sometimes it has to give way to other values, and can rightfully be limited if necessary to protect something else of great importance. There are both women and men on both sides of this worldview divide. And there is something to be said for trying to understand the viewpoint of people with very different values from your own – a message both sides of that divide would do well to heed.
* Oppress women * Don't oppress women
This is the paradox of tolerance. You cannot negotiate with a monster who wants to force their views on people, especially those around forced birthing, you know, against the Helsinki Agreement on Human Right among others. There is no benevolent religion or philosophy that requires forcing a person to do something with their body.
I don't have pro or anti views. I just have a single view that you can do whatever you fucking like with your own body, and nobody can tell you that you can or cant. Anything else is fucking monstrous and will not be tolerated.
So, is your position that 77% of American women – including the 42% who support limited abortion restrictions – "hate themselves, or at least hate their sex"? Maybe, rather than they hating themselves, it is you who hate them?
[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abo...
Basically you are asking for a tyranny of a majority. It just doesn't matter what you, 1% or 40% or 99% of people believe -- they are free to believe and do whatever they want with their own bodies. They cannot dictate beliefs and behaviors for others. Its just a simple thing. Autonomy.
I think religion has poisoned many minds. Any belief structure that requires forcing a viewpoint onto others is unacceptable.
I do believe all access all the time to whomever wants it, yes. There only one view that matters: A women has the right to decide what happens to her body. Anything else has no place on this planet.
Go oppress someone else.
There is only one hateful position -- that you have the right to force your beliefs on others bodies. I do not share this position.
What is not granted is the ability to force another to take on those views. I am not forcing you have have a particular belief structure, but you are making an argument that because a group of people have some pretty crazy ideas we all must be beholden to it. When you want to force an ideology -- and my position is not an ideology, it is an anti-ideology at best.
I posit that forcing women to give birth to babies against their consent is a grave human rights violation and cannot be tolerated in a modern civilized society. It is the same logic of the paradox of tolerance that we cannot permit those to push a their hateful agenda against others, for they will push their ignorance and hate so loud that rights vanish quickly.
77% of American women support some degree of abortion restrictions – although a majority of them only support limited restrictions. What do you mean to say that all those women have "pretty crazy ideas"? How are they "forcing" an ideology on anyone by acting politically in accordance with their own beliefs–any more than anyone else doing the same thing is doing?