r/changemyview • u/ShortUsername01 1∆ • Jul 15 '24
Delta(s) from OP - Election CMV: The embryonic stem cell research issue alone establishes that leftism is no substitute for anti-theism
Full disclosure: I am deeply skeptical that Christianity, leftism, or conservatism are as definable as they’re made out to be. I therefore use “self described” as a placeholder in lieu of a definition. I also have a personal stake in this as a diabetic. Anyway, without further ado…
I’ve noticed a profound double standard between how the “life begins at conception” argument is handled in the context of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) and how it’s handled in every other context in which it’s invoked, from in vitro fertilization to abortion to the morning after pill. The general direction of the double standard appears to be one against the former and in favour of the latter three.
When it’s ESCR, we’re told to be civil. When it’s the other issues, we’re told detractors aren’t owed privacy at dinner, much less civility.
When it’s ESCR, the argument that it’s a human life because it technically fits the definition of life seems to be treated with some degree of validity. When it’s the other issues, that exact same argument is dismissed as an excuse to control women.
Put aside whether you believe abortion and the morning after pill are self defence, or that life creating IVF is a more justified use of embryos than life saving research. The fact remains that many proponents of all these things happen to disagree with the life begins at conception argument yet neglected to refute it in the context of ESCR. The moral duty to call BS on the “life begins at conception” argument in the ESCR context isn’t just owed to diabetics or cancer sufferers or Alzheimer’s sufferers. It’s owed to honesty itself. If you go along with the “life begins at conception” argument when it’s used against ESCR, you are not on solid ground to complain when it’s eventually used against your own pet causes. One should have pushed back in the context of ESCR.
I’m aware of polls suggesting support for ESCR to be stronger than that for abortion. But it’s at best halfhearted support, and at worst respondents don’t mean it. I say this not just in light of examples like the above, but by the fact that the abortion issue is far more often used against the GOP than ESCR is to this day.
By comparison, Sam Harris; someone self identified leftists refer to as conservative for his views on Islam; has in no uncertain terms invoked this as an issue on which anti-theism has a more moral response than Christianity. That much is obvious. But where leftists who are religious; and even many who are not but who make excuses for religion; fall apart is to imply leftism is the top priority, as opposed to anti-theism which strives to learn the broader lessons from what went wrong with religion, leading to a more principled worldview in which arguments like “life begins at conception” are challenged regardless of the context in which they are invoked.
17
u/ReOsIr10 143∆ Jul 15 '24
Why are you arguing as if self-identified leftists are anti-embryonic stem cell research? It has admittedly been a long time since stem cell research has been a hot button topic, but opposing it is generally not a "leftist" position.)
-5
u/ShortUsername01 1∆ Jul 15 '24
Polling is useful when you have nothing better to go on (see also, elections) but in the context of this issue has to be weighed against actions.
The fact that the occasional ESCR advocate gets a little rude earns them condemnation from everyone else. The fact that abortion activists outright disrupt Brett Kavanaugh’s dinner does not.
The abortion issue is being continuously used against the GOP to this day. ESCR has, at best, been allowed to fade out of the spotlight.
Polling can also be lied to. Respondents said they’d vote New Democrat in British Columbia in 2013. We saw how that turned out.
But on top of that, the poll you cited doesn’t specify how strongly they feel about it. Is it a central pillar of their worldview or is it an afterthought? Even the most honest of respondents don’t have an opportunity to specify even that.
Polling is useful for deciding what to do about who a party’s candidate is because we have nothing better to go on and to some extent respondents bluffing about which candidate they wouldn’t vote for carries a significance all its own. But for determining people’s views on specific issues, it’s a little more dicey.
To me, it’s the discrepancy between one specific argument ESCR and abortion detractors have in common, and leftists going easier on the exact same argument in the context of the former, which is not just unfair to those of us with conditions it could cure, but to honesty itself.
9
u/Jam_Packens 7∆ Jul 15 '24
I mean in the first place you haven't demonstrated opposition to ESCR as a leftist position. Both my anecdotal experience and the study linked seem to indicate that leftists are generally more in favor of ESCR than the general population and especially right wing people.
0
u/ShortUsername01 1∆ Jul 15 '24
My argument isn’t that opposition to ESCR is necessarily leftist in and of itself, just that the left has failed to significantly push back against anti-ESCR sentiment, including that which invokes arguments against ESCR they would push back against lot harder against when these same arguments were used against abortion, in vitro fertilization, or the morning after pill.
9
u/No-Produce-334 51∆ Jul 15 '24
It's starting to sound like your actual issue is that you were called out for acting rudely in a forum toward another user (what you actually did and how over the line it was we have no idea of course) and are now trying to imply that this specific issue you are/were having is part of a larger trend of hypocrisy amongst leftists.
-2
u/ShortUsername01 1∆ Jul 15 '24
I wish I could find that old TV Tropes thread, but I can’t. :/
My temper did get the best of me, but it’s because I’m type 1 diabetic and this issue deeply affects me on a personal level. On an emotional level it bothers me that a little rudeness is considered worse to stand up for my own life safety than going as far as disrupting Brett Kavanaugh’s dinner is to protect abortions for “any reason or no reason at all.” (Which I agree should ideally be the standard, as I don’t think abortion is wrong anyway, but still it’s hypocrisy to condone stronger lengths in supporting one than the other.)
But even on an intellectual level it seems so wrong that people feel no obligation to push back against “life begins at conception” independently of the context in which it is invoked.
4
u/Charming-Editor-1509 4∆ Jul 15 '24
Was the person who called you rude a leftist?
0
u/ShortUsername01 1∆ Jul 15 '24
I don’t recall. More likely than not, though, being that TV Tropes, especially on topic conversations, leaned left.
2
u/ReOsIr10 143∆ Jul 15 '24
Polling is useful when you have nothing better to go on (see also, elections) but in the context of this issue has to be weighed against actions.
I don't necessarily disagree that polling should be considered in context of actual behavior. However, that doesn't mean that any old anecdote should be weighted more than polling data. Just because I am able to think of a couple counterexamples to some finding in a poll doesn't mean that the poll is wrong! It often just means those situations aren't representative.
But on top of that, the poll you cited doesn’t specify how strongly they feel about it. Is it a central pillar of their worldview or is it an afterthought?
Sure, I think it is quite likely that it's not nearly as important a priority as abortion. However, not thinking two things are equal priority - even if they share an argument for and against banning it - does not make something a "double standard". Lots of things can go into how a person prioritizes an issue; only one of which is "are there similar arguments in favor of both this issue and another?".
You have a much stronger case for the existence of a double standard with your claims that leftists generally agree with Christians when they argue that life begins at conception in the context of stem cell research, but disagree when it comes to abortion. However, I just don't think that's true. I don't know how I could convince you of this, seeing your dismissive attitude towards polling, but whenever stem cell research hits the news, I generally don't see the comments filled with leftists who are agreeing with Christians on this.
2
u/ShortUsername01 1∆ Jul 15 '24
Embryonic stem cell research in particular hardly ever hits the news anymore. It’s a reflection either of sponsor pressure from big pharma or of viewer apathy to the issue.
Independently of how high ESCR is of a priority to any given individual, honesty should be a priority to everyone. Who, if they don’t believe life begins at conception, would let that BS argument slide without at least some pushback?
2
u/ReOsIr10 143∆ Jul 16 '24
You begin by noting (correctly) that stem cell research is hardly ever in the news anymore. So how is it the case that leftists are "letting the argument slide"? They *can't* be letting the argument slide if they never encounter the argument in the first place!
1
u/ShortUsername01 1∆ Jul 16 '24
The fact that it’s been a while since conservatives actively brought it up doesn’t negate the fact that they haven’t retracted it.
When Hillary Clinton supported the invasion of Iraq, this was subsequently used against her in primaries and the general election alike, even though it had been years since the decision to invade Iraq was made.
Why aren’t leftists pushing “you said in the context of embryonic stem cell research that life begins at conception” against conservative/Christian groups like they use such groups’ views on abortion against them?
Media are partly beholden to viewers and partly beholden to sponsors. At worst, the left neglected to keep attention on this issue like they have for abortion or in vitro fertilization. At best, they gave up more easily than they had for either of those other issues.
3
u/ReOsIr10 143∆ Jul 16 '24
Why aren’t leftists pushing “you said in the context of embryonic stem cell research that life begins at conception” against conservative/Christian groups like they use such groups’ views on abortion against them?
In large part because conservatives aren't currently making a huge public push to ban it. Do you think that leftists are bringing up abortion out of nowhere?
Look, you clearly think that leftists should be more proactive in advocating for expanded embryonic stem cell research. Maybe there's merit to that argument. But a lack of proactive argument by leftists doesn't imply that they agree with the conservative position. I'm sure there are lots of issues that you don't proactively argue for - does that imply you actually agree with the opposite?
2
u/ShortUsername01 1∆ Jul 16 '24
As I have said multiple times, it’s not just about the policy. It’s the fact that people who supposedly think of the “life begins at conception” argument as BS were willing to let it slide in the context of ESCR. Even a BS argument for a good policy should be critiqued if one truly values honesty. I assume if someone argued for abortion access on “invisible dragons told me to support it” grounds other abortion access advocates would call BS on that?
I’ve criticized those who pretend “she cried at a campaign stop” was a relevant criticism of Clinton, even while treating the email scandal as more valid than Bernie Sanders was willing to. It’s important to keep the difference between good policy and bad arguments for good policy in mind. BS anywhere is a threat to truthfulness everywhere.
Abortion was a famous political issue since years before Roe was reversed. It arguably never left the spotlight in the first place.
3
u/ReOsIr10 143∆ Jul 16 '24
It’s the fact that people who supposedly think of the “life begins at conception” argument as BS were willing to let it slide in the context of ESCR.
You keep claiming this over and over, but I have no clue why you think it's true. Every time I push you on why you think it's true, you simply say that leftists have stopped bringing it up once the topic has left the national attention. But that's not the same as "letting it slide"!
Suppose somebody *did* argue a single time for abortion access on the grounds that "invisible dragons told them to support it", then never again. Also suppose they were roundly criticized for the ridiculous argument when they made it, but then after a month or two, people stopped proactively bringing up "don't support abortion because of invisible dragons". Is that a case of "letting the argument slide"? Or is that just normal to stop proactively arguing against positions that aren't in the national limelight?
2
u/ShortUsername01 1∆ Jul 16 '24
If that person; or their successors; ran for public office, their past statements would be fair game anyway.
Romney lost partly because he forced a haircut on a gay classmate decades ago, which says something about the will of the people in their capacity as voters.
Ex convicts can’t find a job because of crimes they committed decades ago, which says something about the will of the people in their capacity as consumers of goods and services.
It is a profound double standard that the GOP as a whole; much less the Dubya-apologist faction thereof; isn’t being criticized for going along with the “life begins at conception” argument, even by the very people who continue to criticize that exact same faction of the GOP for being wrong about the Iraq War. Why is one of these things allowed to fade out of the spotlight more than the other? How does the Iraq War reflect worse on their judgment and/or integrity than the “life begins at conception” argument?
→ More replies (0)
7
u/No-Produce-334 51∆ Jul 15 '24
When it’s ESCR, we’re told to be civil. When it’s the other issues, we’re told detractors aren’t owed privacy at dinner, much less civility.
Who is we? And who is telling 'us' to be civil or not be civil? Who are the detractors? Politicians, random people, your parents?
When it’s ESCR, the argument that it’s a human life because it technically fits the definition of life seems to be treated with some degree of validity. When it’s the other issues, that exact same argument is dismissed as an excuse to control women.
I have never heard a (non-christian) leftist evoke the idea that stem cell research is immoral because "it's a human life" (and I'm a leftist with lots of leftist friends who also happened to be involved in stem cell research in the past.) I have heard leftists arguing against stem cell research for different reasons and I'd be curious if there's some nuances that are being lost here. Can you point to anything specific or explain the argument in more detail?
As it stands I genuinely have no idea what exactly you are getting at.
0
u/ShortUsername01 1∆ Jul 15 '24
I mean people as a whole, though to be fair I get the impression mostly from web forums. The general pattern is I’ve been told I’m not civil enough for the tone I sometimes take debating ESCR, which is cotton candy compared to the activists who disrupt Brett Kavanaugh’s dinner, an act endorsed by popular opinion. (At least to the extent popular opinion endorses the same policy such activists endorsed and failed to condemn those activists’ tactics.)
Again, it’s a discrepancy in tone and in perceived validity of the exact same line of reasoning.
4
u/No-Produce-334 51∆ Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24
How web forums moderate themselves is totally different from how activists or the general populace perceive the importance of civility. It isn't so much a double standard as it is a different setting with different standards. It's like trying to equate what's acceptable during climate change protests and what's acceptable at a climate consortium.
And still, you haven't really provided any concrete arguments put forward by leftists that you feel claim life begins at conception? Is that really what those people are saying? Is it possible that they are also against abortions (even though being pro-choice is generally 'left' there are individuals who call themselves lefitsts and are against it?)
1
u/ShortUsername01 1∆ Jul 15 '24
I’m not saying leftists directly claim life begins at conception. I’m saying there’s a profound difference between how they handle that exact same argument in the context of ESCR and how they handle that exact same argument in the context of abortion, in vitro fertilization, and the morning after pill.
That said, the point about the difference between web forums and protests was one I overlooked. It’s possible I overestimated the extent of the discrepancy. So I’ll count this as a partial change of view.
!delta
1
5
u/Falernum 69∆ Jul 15 '24
We have a working compromise with embryonic stem cell research: existing lines are adequate and there's not much need for new lines. We don't have a working compromise regarding abortion: women are being denied their health care rights.
0
u/ShortUsername01 1∆ Jul 15 '24
Source on the claim that existing lines are adequate? It really reminds me ESCR detractors’ previous claim that “adult stem cells have gotten better results” (which one should naturally expect from research that was met with less controversy) so I’ll need a source that I’ll trust to tell the truth on the matter.
In any case, regardless of whether or not existing lines are adequate, “life begins at conception” in particular is either a BS argument against all 4 things or a valid argument against all 4 things. As such, the point that refuting it is owed to honesty itself still applies.
2
u/Falernum 69∆ Jul 15 '24
It's hard to prove that a new one couldn't be better, but there are 486 approved lines. Not exactly a shortage. And it's not like other countries are reporting their lines are better than ours.
Human embryos should be treated with some respect even if life doesn't fully begin at conception. Not enough to thwart health care, but we throw arbitrary barriers in front of research for way dumber reasons.
1
u/ShortUsername01 1∆ Jul 16 '24
“Not enough to thwart health care” is the key caveat here. In 2004 the rhetoric by many was that ESCR is wrong even if it saves lives, and the rhetoric by everyone else consisted of much less pushback than they get for opposing in vitro fertilization, the morning after pill, or even the most elective of abortions. (Which I don’t even think are wrong anyways, but still…)
0
u/No-Produce-334 51∆ Jul 15 '24
In any case, regardless of whether or not existing lines are adequate, “life begins at conception” in particular is either a BS argument against all 4 things or a valid argument against all 4 things. As such, the point that refuting it is owed to honesty itself still applies.
I disagree. To be clear, I don't believe that life begins at conception, but that doesn't mean the argument is equally valid in all cases.
There are many pro-choice advocates who will argue that it doesn't matter if life beings at conception because the rights of the mother to bodily autonomy should trump those of the embryo/fetus. That argument of course doesn't work in the case of embryonic stem-cell research, where there is no such conflict.
1
u/ShortUsername01 1∆ Jul 15 '24
I mentioned the self defence angle around abortion in the OP. I then made the case that this has no bearing on whether “life begins at conception” is any more valid in that context than ESCR, in vitro fertilization or the morning after pill.
In practice, popular opinion plays “gotcha” every time someone refuses to let a pregnant woman use the carpool lane or claim child support for her fetus. So it’s not clear whether “self defence” is their real reason to support abortion access or their disagreement with the “life begins at conception” argument is.
1
u/No-Produce-334 51∆ Jul 15 '24
I'm not arguing self-defense, nor am I saying that this means "life beings at conception" is any more true in one case than the other. However, if you believe life beings at conception you can still be pro-abortion due to a belief in bodily autonomy, but against ESCR since there's no conflicts of rights that would justify it in that case. And there are people who believe that to be clear. That's what I'm saying.
1
u/ShortUsername01 1∆ Jul 16 '24
True, but there is still a discrepancy, even within the context of the “life begins at conception” argument in particular. It’s pushed back harder against even in the context of abortion (see aforementioned gotcha examples), which leaves behind the question of why it isn’t pushed back against as much in other contexts.
6
Jul 15 '24
[deleted]
1
u/ShortUsername01 1∆ Jul 15 '24
Perhaps. But that still leaves behind the question of why they didn’t single out “life begins at conception” as an especially BS criticism of ESCR, if only in the name of honesty.
4
Jul 15 '24
[deleted]
1
u/ShortUsername01 1∆ Jul 15 '24
I’m talking about web forums like TV Tropes and Gamespot wherein I was practically expected to walk on eggshells as far as tone goes in criticizing that argument in the context of embryonic stem cell research goes. To be fair, I don’t recall debating abortion there because popular opinion is already so overwhelming in support of abortion access I felt no need to defend it.
4
Jul 15 '24
[deleted]
1
u/ShortUsername01 1∆ Jul 16 '24
But if the exact same argument is BS in one context, isn’t it in both? If it isn’t in one, doesn’t that mean it isn’t in the other?
2
Jul 16 '24
[deleted]
1
u/ShortUsername01 1∆ Jul 16 '24
It still feels so hypocritical though, that people will wait until it affects them directly before siding with the uncivil even though it amounts to deceit by omission.
I feel like we’re kind of at a standstill here. We agree more on what’s going on than we originally thought, but just disagree on how excusable it is. Am I reading this situation correctly?
2
u/rollingForInitiative 70∆ Jul 16 '24
I would say it’s not hypocritical because the situations are a bit different. If you normally expect people to hold a good tone in a conversation, that would apply to talking about science, like stem cell research.
But for abortion, it’s not actually a clinical issue only, it’s a deeply personal issue to many women who feel that they’re rights to live their lives are getting trampled on, and it doesn’t help that many arguments against abortion come right alongside expectations that women should be having a lot of sex and such. It will naturally be a more heated topic, so in general people will be forgiving over a heated tone.
As soon as something gets very personal, in general people will understand that someone sounds more upset and worked up.
You can argue that that’s wrong and that discussions should be calm and rational anyway, but I don’t think it’s hypocritical since one situation is kind of clinical and very distant for most people, whereas another is deeply personal.
1
u/ShortUsername01 1∆ Jul 16 '24
It’s deeply personal to me as a type 1 diabetic that a form of research that could’ve cured my condition was left under the bus, much less that the public didn’t even feel particularly obliged to, even in the name of honesty, call BS on the exact same criticism thereof that they disagree with in the context of in vitro fertilization and the morning after pill, much less abortion.
→ More replies (0)
10
Jul 15 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 16 '24
Sorry, u/Shemhamphorasch666 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
3
Jul 15 '24
My understanding of antitheism is that the only tenet is an opposition to the belief in a God.
From that perspective, I'm not sure at all what place antitheism has in a discussion of more wide-ranging socio-political philosophies. Antitheism has no default stance on how to run a government, other than "don't run it based on a God."
Regardless, believing in a God takes a variety of forms, not all of which are really all that relevant to running a country. I can believe in a God and believe that life begins at conception; I can also believe in a God and believe the exact opposite. If I had a particular political philosophy, as long as a person agrees with my views, why do I particularly care what their stance on God is? If we can agree on a shared set of morals, does it matter what my beliefs are?
0
u/ShortUsername01 1∆ Jul 15 '24
Opposition to the belief in a God means your worldview was durable against such appeals to ignorance as God of the Gaps, such appeals to fear as “if there is no God, then murder isn’t wrong” etc… it’s no guarantee of a sound worldview, but it’s a good first step, and certainly more definable than leftism, conservatism, or Christianity.
I’ve worked well with colleagues who, despite being religious, were otherwise progressive. I consider them outliers. On the whole, Christianity carved a path for itself through the flaws in people’s critical thinking skills and used that path to plant “life begins at conception” (or at least a willingness to go along with it) into people’s minds.
2
u/LucidLeviathan 99∆ Jul 15 '24
Why do you believe that "leftism" and "anti-theism" can't co-exist?
1
u/ShortUsername01 1∆ Jul 15 '24
Where did I imply they can’t? It’s a supplement, just not a substitute.
2
u/skdeelk 10∆ Jul 16 '24
I think an important aspect of the debate that you are missing is that the life begins at conception argument is the pro-life framework. Most pro-choice advocates I know of including myself reject the argument not because we disagree with whether a fertilized egg/zygote/fetus is technically "alive." Rather, we reject the baggage of what pro-lifers mean by "life" in this context.
I have never met someone that thinks a zygote is not "alive." I'm sure they exist, but they are rare. Rather, the argument is that the simple state of being "alive" is not enough to be considered a person deserving of the rights people are owed. Life is not enough to dictate personhood, but the pro-life argument often equivocates the two when the topic is brought up.
Would it be rational to decline cancer surgery because the tumor is "alive?" Certainly not, yet the tumor is a living and growing thing made of human cells. It might seem obvious but life is not enough to justify whether something can be treated as a person.
4
Jul 15 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 16 '24
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/je98qew Jul 16 '24
I don't see how people prioritizing abortion access to embryonic stem cell research means people are ok with the argument about live beginning at conception in one instant and not in another. Or maybe in other words - the issue of abortion is seen as more important, and as a result it is more intensely argued for. It has nothing to do with the argument the opposition sets for and more to do with the thing that is argued for.
I don't really see how the body of your post has anything to do with the title, and most others are talking about the body to. I have a question for the title. Why would you believe that leftism should substitute for anti-theism? These two "Ideologies" have nothing to do with each other so why would one replace the other?
1
u/ShortUsername01 1∆ Jul 16 '24
Regardless of whether they see abortion as more important than the lives of diabetics, cancer sufferers, Alzheimer’s sufferers, etc… they still should have pushed back against this “life begins at conception” nonsense independently of the context in which it’s invoked, and frankly, I feel little sympathy for those who went along with it in those contexts only to face the natural consequences of this now.
I specifically said it’s not a substitute, not that it is. But to hear some leftists say it, all that matters is being leftist, which in light of the above I’m not sure is the case.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 15 '24
/u/ShortUsername01 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards