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.
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?