system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: I think that bringing up rights when discussing policy is unproductive.

I'm not a fan of the way policy discussion takes place and feel it could be more productive.

Let us start off with abortion. I am completely pro choice but I don't like the way discussion in some cases takes place. For example, I saw a post on two x that didn't really refute any restrictive abortion policies but just stated the right to bodily autonomy as an argument against them. I don't feel like stating that is a proper refutation. I think that if we were to look at something like sex selective abortion policies it might be more obvious what I see is wrong with those arguments. Imagine if they were having a debate in India. One person brings up all this data about the problems with unrestricted sex selective abortion and the other person simply said that those policies shouldn't be allowed because it was their right to an abortion for whatever reason they wish. This would be bad because the discussion is far too nuanced.

I think that there are problems that arise from hiding behind this argument. The fundamental reason I would consider it bad is this. Rights are a human construct. A bunch of people got together and decided that guaranteeing certain rights would be best for the people. It seems perfectly reasonable that they could've been wrong and that guaranteeing those rights in certain situation are bad. Not trying to suggest whether or not they are. They could be though so arguing that something shouldn't happen because it is your right is a terrible argument.

I'm not trying to suggest all discussion that takes place is like this. When talking about gun rights there is a lot of fruitful and important discussion using data, statistics, and other relevant factors. However, there is a small group of arguers who would refute arguments from the other side by simply saying that it is their right guaranteed by the second amendment.

I think that rights are not relevant in policy discussion.

Edit: My view has been changed thanks to iamblegion. I appreciate everyone who commented to assist in changing my view. It definitely did feel off.
gpt
If rights are irrelevant, there is no need for laws. At their base, laws protect rights via threat of physical punishment. Murder, for instance, is illegal because you have a right to life. Statistics and facts do have an important place in policy, but to temper rights. 

Let's look at abortion, how do you justify abortion using only statistics and facts?