Opinion Thoughts of a Pro-Lifer

[Hall Kervean]

Okay, this is the part wher I say that I'm disabled in more ways than one.
And believe me, doctors tend to be fairly accurate when it comes to predicting if someone will pull through. Miracles happen, but that's not enough to convince me that they should be given resources over those who have a better chance of recovery.



Well, for one, I trust doctors. And for the last time, this is not about value. This is about who gets put first in a situation where at least one death is inevitable. Don't try to guilt trip me with pictures of dying kids.

Again, you and I are in agreement that mothers should have the choice of whether or not the baby should die if the mother is at risk. But in a hospital, they have enough resources for the mother and the baby.
And, if I sneak a peek at your response to Rachael of the Shire , it would appear that you're in favor of not giving the mother a choice if there are twins or more, ya?

 

[Chimney Swift]

She's fine now. I had to wrap her in a blanket and show her around so that she wouldn't be killed. I was beaten severely for showing everyone the living, breathing child.

And she calls me "Mommy" even though I've told her a thousand times that she was born when I was 12 and we're sisters.

Oh, and this is my mom (the woman in the picture). Soviet doctors said she wouldn't make it and tried to starve her. My grandma didn't buy that. She's 41 now and has 5 girls and 3 boys.

Again, you and I are in agreement that mothers should have the choice of whether or not the baby should die if the mother is at risk. But in a hospital, they have enough resources for the mother and the baby.
And, if I sneak a peek at your response to Rachael of the Shire , it would appear that you're in favor of not giving the mother a choice if there are twins or more, ya?

Again, i'm not saying these people should die. If there's enough resources to save everyone, of course that's what should be done! I never said anything to the contrary.

All I said was that in the event that only one person can be saved, priority goes to the one most likely to pull through and live life. In the case of emergency abortion, it's the mother. If the mother were brain dead, it would be the reverse.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Again, i'm not saying these people should die. If there's enough resources to save everyone, of course that's what should be done! I never said anything to the contrary.

All I said was that in the event that only one person can be saved, priority goes to the one most likely to pull through and live life. In the case of emergency abortion, it's the mother. If the mother were brain dead, it would be the reverse.

So you would be okay with Rocky's wife dying, but not someone else's?
Again, we're in agreement. But it sounds like that makes you pro-life for the most part.

 

[Chimney Swift]

So you would be okay with Rocky's wife dying, but not someone else's?
Again, we're in agreement. But it sounds like that makes you pro-life for the most part.

I might be. I like to think I'm in favor of less untimely deaths.
And I don't know what you're saying about Rocky's wife? Of course I wouldn't be okay with an innocent person dying, but sometimes certain conditions mean someone has to die, and in those cases, choices have to be made.

 

[Rachael of the Shire]

I have to get to school now. See you later, folks. Thank you Hall Kervean for the historic reference; it was a nice bit of history that I can sadly forsee repeating itself if pro-choice arguments fly too far.

Chimney Swift I have multiple physical deformities and took forever to learn to walk and speak. I also have been thrown against something with enough force that I blacked out and could not move or speak for a while upon waking up. By your argument, because there was no knowledge that I had consciousness, my life was less valuable. Be careful how you go with this.

 

[Chimney Swift]

I have to get to school now. See you later, folks. Thank you @Sano Suaro for the historic reference; it was a nice bit of history that I can sadly forsee repeating itself if pro-choice arguments fly too far.

Chimney Swift I have multiple physical deformities and took forever to learn to walk and speak. I also have been thrown against something with enough force that I blacked out and could not move or speak for a while upon waking up. By your argument, because there was no knowledge that I had consciousness, my life was less valuable. Be careful how you go with this.

Again, THIS IS NOT ABOUT VALUE. How many times do I have to say this?

Ideally, all lives are equal. In an absolute Worst-case Scenario, choices have to favor those with higher odds of survival.

 

[The Gunrunner]

I said Bible, so that should clear up for you that first question. And if it is in the original Hebrew, then yes, it is actually written there. And if God exists, then whatever He deems objectively right is objectively right. The ones in the Bible are objectively true, anything not touched on in there is subjective. The Bible has been tampered with (hence mormonism), so it's important we go back to the Hebrew and Greek. The KJV (and kind of by extension the NKJV) are the most accurate translations. Because of the impossibility of what was achieved with the Bible (a completely connected book that has no errors), there is a very high likelihood God wrote it. Especially since He said in there that He wrote it.

And yes, that entirely relies on believing in God. But now you see that by abiding by 3 sentences, we can clear up the entire pro-life/pro-choice debate.

I don't agree. We can take it to PM, or it'll have to be ignored.

I have to get to school now. See you later, folks. Thank you @Sano Suaro for the historic reference; it was a nice bit of history that I can sadly forsee repeating itself if pro-choice arguments fly too far.

Chimney Swift I have multiple physical deformities and took forever to learn to walk and speak. I also have been thrown against something with enough force that I blacked out and could not move or speak for a while upon waking up. By your argument, because there was no knowledge that I had consciousness, my life was less valuable. Be careful how you go with this.

I was going to ignore Sano's bit since I thought and think he was/is aware of what the law is. But since this exists...

Godwin's Law criticizes the accuser because the law was made for when you ignore the arguments and look for its connection to nazism. The accuser is criticized because it's a mix of ad hominem and the fallacy of association, trying to imply someone is the worst possible type of human (the closest commonly accepted example of 'literal evil') without actually arguing against what someone has said. Because, no, not everything Hitler did was bad. He grew a mustache, he supported animal rights, he kissed a baby once.
When someone makes the fallacy of association, a puppy dies. Please think of the puppies.

 

[Hall Kervean]

When someone makes the fallacy of association, a puppy dies. Please think of the puppies.

no im a cat prson

 

[Rachael of the Shire]

You all can post your ideas. I will respect your beliefs as opinions of other equally valuable human beings. However, know that it is extremely difficult to make me budge in my beliefs. If you are attempting to, you had best have some scientifically proven facts and strong reasoning in your favor. Also, explain how your philosophy could not lead to Hitler style euthanasia.

To all those who would look at the last comment and rain down uneducated hatred... please do check the original post. I thought before I posted.

Chimney Swift actually seems to be pro-life when it comes down to real decisions. I appreciate that.

 

[Chimney Swift]

You all can post your ideas. I will respect your beliefs as opinions of other equally valuable human beings. However, know that it is extremely difficult to make me budge in my beliefs. If you are attempting to, you had best have some scientifically proven facts and strong reasoning in your favor. Also, explain how your philosophy could not lead to Hitler style euthanasia.

To all those who would look at the last comment and rain down uneducated hatred... please do check the original post. I thought before I posted.

Chimney Swift actually seems to be pro-life when it comes down to real decisions. I appreciate that.

Thank you for being understanding. It's actually really valuable to me to hear your experiences and opinions.

 

[The Gunrunner]

no im a cat prson

Fair enough. Dogs are just mutant morons that spray shit everywhere really.

Every time someone makes an ad hominem, a kitten's head explodes.
Please think of the kittens.

You all can post your ideas. I will respect your beliefs as opinions of other equally valuable human beings. However, know that it is extremely difficult to make me budge in my beliefs. If you are attempting to, you had best have some scientifically proven facts and strong reasoning in your favor. Also, explain how your philosophy could not lead to Hitler style euthanasia.

I'm not trying to change your mind myself, but I was presenting my belief to share and defending it. The only criticism here is the hitler thing, sooo

Shifting of the Burden of Proof As the claim-maker, you need to provide arguments or proof that the philosophy will lead to the hitler style euthanasia mentioned in Sano's link. One can argue against your claim, but they can also ignore it.
However, I'll do a solid and argue against the euthanasia thing anyway by pointing out the different foundations and why their and my ideas aren't the same:
"The physically and mentally handicapped were viewed as "useless" to society..." An example of utilitarianism, the idea that if an action benefits the majority then it is a morally good action. Not about consciousness.
"...a threat to Aryan genetic purity,..." Implimentation of eugenics in humans mixed with a placed importance on skin, hair, and eye pigment. Not on consciousness.
"...and, ultimately, unworthy of life." Ending with the idea not that they don't have inherent value, but that they should be killed. Not the same ending conclusion as the consciousness argument.
The only similarity that I can see is that both made attempts to decide when life has value, but if that's the only connection then I don't consider that enough to criticize my foundation; every moral argument, including the simple 'god says so,' is an attempt to state when life has value.

 

[Rachael of the Shire]

Fair enough. Dogs are just mutant morons that spray shit everywhere really.

Every time someone makes an ad hominem, a kitten's head explodes.
Please think of the kittens.


I'm not trying to change your mind myself, but I was presenting my belief to share and defending it. The only criticism here is the hitler thing, sooo

Shifting of the Burden of Proof As the claim-maker, you need to provide arguments or proof that the philosophy will lead to the hitler style euthanasia mentioned in Sano's link. One can argue against your claim, but they can also ignore it.
However, I'll do a solid and argue against the euthanasia thing anyway by pointing out the different foundations and why their and my ideas aren't the same:
"The physically and mentally handicapped were viewed as "useless" to society..." An example of utilitarianism, the idea that if an action benefits the majority then it is a morally good action. Not about consciousness.
"...a threat to Aryan genetic purity,..." Implimentation of eugenics in humans mixed with a placed importance on skin, hair, and eye pigment. Not on consciousness.
"...and, ultimately, unworthy of life." Ending with the idea not that they don't have inherent value, but that they should be killed. Not the same ending conclusion as the consciousness argument.
The only similarity that I can see is that both made attempts to decide when life has value, but if that's the only connection then I don't consider that enough to criticize my foundation; every moral argument, including the simple 'god says so,' is an attempt to state when life has value.

I place a higher value on the lives of real puppies and kittens who are to my knowledge immune to ad hominem attacks.

"Mentally handicapped" could very easily be translated as a separate state of consciousness, as could physical disability if your philosophy skills are good enough. Even old age could be translated as a lack of true consciousness due to an inability to avoid naps. Or religion due to the state that is known to be achieved by prayer.

Rather than go any further, I will leave you to decide whether you really want to explain why pro choice arguments couldn't possibly lead to the killing of other groups of people. If you can do that, awesome! If not, I will have to stop replying to your posts to avoid a thread derailment.

 

[The Gunrunner]

I place a higher value on the lives of real puppies and kittens who are to my knowledge immune to ad hominem attacks.

"Mentally handicapped" could very easily be translated as a separate state of consciousness, as could physical disability if your philosophy skills are good enough. Even old age could be translated as a lack of true consciousness due to an inability to avoid naps. Or religion due to the state that is known to be achieved by prayer.

Rather than go any further, I will leave you to decide whether you really want to explain why pro choice arguments couldn't possibly lead to the killing of other groups of people. If you can do that, awesome! If not, I will have to stop replying to your posts to avoid a thread derailment.

Not lack of consciousness, not lack of consciousness, not lack of consciousness. 'True consciousness'? I was talking about specific aspects of it if that wasn't clear before, which is why I don't support the killing of newborns or abortion in the third trimester. Missing certain aspects of consciousness does not mean you have no consciousness. Someone can have an inability to sense things, but still be conscious in many other areas.

I can't; 'People' is defined by 'human,' thus: It will. Fetuses have the DNA that means they are scientifically human beings. My foundation is fine with abortion, so it will kill humans. I don't think that matters because they're humans without the ability of consciousness, but your question was worded in quite a specific way whether intended or not; since my foundation places conditions on when life matters (offering no exception to humans, instead a foundation applicable to all life,) asking me to show it won't kill anyone is a bit impossible on my standpoint. Perhaps that disgusts you (it wouldn't be the first time,) because now some humans don't matter. I have an issue with starting on 'human life has value' though, because it starts way past the 'why.' This is starting with an assertion. I mean hell, can you really not see why someone might be equally disgusted by the idea that 'human' is most important? Fuck everything that isn't human? And if not 'fuck everything not human,' what do you think is valuable and /why/ is that? If you make the religious connection, you then have to find out if that religion is factually true - Its claims are irrelevant without that, because their foundation is in the idea they are objective truth. If you think they are fact - Great! But now in discussions and debate you have to show to others that it is factually true. I don't follow the religious connection because I don't view it as objective truth, thus it is logical to me to ignore the claims of objective morality under the idea it is recorded subjective morality. However, if you propose and argue for a non-religious foundation then congratulations - You're doing what I'm trying to do.
And when I responded to you before, I wasn't explaining why pro-choice arguments couldn't possibly lead to the killing of other groups of people. I was explaining why the comparison to hitler was inaccurate and ridiculous, because the ending conclusions and their basis are different. One says things ought to be killed, the other says things can be killed. One is extermination, the other is lack of protection. One is advocating for implimented eugenics so they don't taint the gene pool, the other has no foundational issue. One places a value on pigments, the other on the ability to perceive one's own worth. Not the same.

 

[Idea]

This is honestly an issue I've struggled with, as it presents something where my morals differ. On one hand, I believe in the value of life, and the rational preservation of it. I believe sacrifices must be made sometimes, and sometimes taking a life is necessary to save others, which by their number or odds, are more worth preserving.
However, I am also a believer in the catholic faith. And as that, I claim any being with a human soul has the indisputable right to live.

Because of this, I believe without doubt that in any case where the baby is anything less than life-threatening to the mother, one should never be allowed to abort. But in those cases where the life of the mother IS threatened, things start to go a bit more grey.

But I came to to realize somehting: Most of the argument "pro-choice" are made on an entirely emotional basis. Things like "It's the woman's body" ignore the baby's very existence. "The baby is not yet conscious" measures death by your empathy towards it- which would basically make killing you in your sleep a fair option-, but by far the biggest thing that's being ignored is that there is one simple reason the child is even there in the first place- the woman was having sex. Now, I trust that having sex must be a wonderful, addicting thing, but it's also a process of the body that exists for the sake of procriation. In other words, no argument regarding the dignity of the woman stands any ground when the only reason the problem exists is because she wasn't able to keep it in her pants, if you can excuse my rudeness. This, while not by any means something that would settle the debate does shed some light on soemthing I didn't notice until that point. The child is being treated like a murderer on death row. They are being treated like someone who we would never consider punishign like that if we didn't believe them to be guilty or a horrendous crime. We are killing them in ways we wouldn't kill any baby animal, much less a pet. The child of those women is taken to a lesser standard than a pet.

In other words, the blame is shifted from the woman to the uborn child. Which means, the behavior will propagate. Even if I value the woman's life just as much as the baby's, or maybe even more, I don't have just ONE baby to consider. Because every time a woman has an abortion legally, you are giving incentive to behave in an irresponsible manner that does not consider the real implications of one's actions.

However, one last thing that was brought to my attention was that, even if we made this illegal, then women would simply resort to doing it illegally. Which would be far worse, and take far more lives.

So I am pro-life on the morality of it, but pro-choice on the legality.

 

[Rachael of the Shire]

This is honestly an issue I've struggled with, as it presents something where my morals differ. On one hand, I believe in the value of life, and the rational preservation of it. I believe sacrifices must be made sometimes, and sometimes taking a life is necessary to save others, which by their number or odds, are more worth preserving.
However, I am also a believer in the catholic faith. And as that, I claim any being with a human soul has the indisputable right to live.

Because of this, I believe without doubt that in any case where the baby is anything less than life-threatening to the mother, one should never be allowed to abort. But in those cases where the life of the mother IS threatened, things start to go a bit more grey.

But I came to to realize somehting: Most of the argument "pro-choice" are made on an entirely emotional basis. Things like "It's the woman's body" ignore the baby's very existence. "The baby is not yet conscious" measures death by your empathy towards it- which would basically make killing you in your sleep a fair option-, but by far the biggest thing that's being ignored is that there is one simple reason the child is even there in the first place- the woman was having sex. Now, I trust that having sex must be a wonderful, addicting thing, but it's also a process of the body that exists for the sake of procriation. In other words, no argument regarding the dignity of the woman stands any ground when the only reason the problem exists is because she wasn't able to keep it in her pants, if you can excuse my rudeness. This, while not by any means something that would settle the debate does shed some light on soemthing I didn't notice until that point. The child is being treated like a murderer on death row. They are being treated like someone who we would never consider punishign like that if we didn't believe them to be guilty or a horrendous crime. We are killing them in ways we wouldn't kill any baby animal, much less a pet. The child of those women is taken to a lesser standard than a pet.

In other words, the blame is shifted from the woman to the uborn child. Which means, the behavior will propagate. Even if I value the woman's life just as much as the baby's, or maybe even more, I don't have just ONE baby to consider. Because every time a woman has an abortion legally, you are giving incentive to behave in an irresponsible manner that does not consider the real implications of one's actions.

However, one last thing that was brought to my attention was that, even if we made this illegal, then women would simply resort to doing it illegally. Which would be far worse, and take far more lives.

So I am pro-life on the morality of it, but pro-choice on the legality.

I appreciate that you have put a little more thought into this.

While illegal abortions will continue to be a thing... consider that cocaine is also illegal. If it were legal, yes, it would be "safer" now that it was better regulated, but it still wouldn't be right to give it to people. Making things illegal never stops them, but it drives them underground and decreases the frequency of such events. Therefore, making it illegal would be quite helpful.

 

[Idea]

I appreciate that you have put a little more thought into this.

While illegal abortions will continue to be a thing... consider that cocaine is also illegal. If it were legal, yes, it would be "safer" now that it was better regulated, but it still wouldn't be right to give it to people. Making things illegal never stops them, but it drives them underground and decreases the frequency of such events. Therefore, making it illegal would be quite helpful.

I did consider that at a point, but you must keep in mind, that in one case, the cocain is the problem and the addiction. Abortion, on the other hand, is a a consequence of a previous addiction, which is sex (which is something that's legal and required for the human species to continue to exist). So while illegality may deter the number of concain consumers considerably (which is a discussion in of itself by the way), thus preventing the addiction that leads to the problem, making abortion illegal doesn't solve the demand there are for them.

Think of it this way: If you make a piece of chocolate cost 1000 dollars, you're very unlikely to ever sell it. However, if you make every drop of water 100 dollars, people will HAVE to get it behind your back, because thirst isn't eliminated by your pricing. The same way, illegality on drugs can prevent a demand for them from being developed to begin with, but you can't stop people from making babies, people who can't handle taking care of a baby and think abortion is the only or best option. Those people don't even view NOT having the abortion as a real option anymore, they just HAVE TO HAVE IT. Hence, it's not being told not to that will stop them from doing it, nor are worse conditions.

 

[Rachael of the Shire]

I did consider that at a point, but you must keep in mind, that in one case, the cocain is the problem and the addiction. Abortion, on the other hand, is a a consequence of a previous addiction, which is sex (which is something that's legal and required for the human species to continue to exist). So while illegality may deter the number of concain consumers considerably (which is a discussion in of itself by the way), thus preventing the addiction that leads to the problem, making abortion illegal doesn't solve the demand there are for them.

Think of it this way: If you make a piece of chocolate cost 1000 dollars, you're very unlikely to ever sell it. However, if you make every drop of water 100 dollars, people will HAVE to get it behind your back, because thirst isn't eliminated by your pricing. The same way, illegality on drugs can prevent a demand for them from being developed to begin with, but you can't stop people from making babies, people who can't handle taking care of a baby and think abortion is the only or best option. Those people don't even view NOT having the abortion as a real option anymore, they just HAVE TO HAVE IT. Hence, it's not being told not to that will stop them from doing it, nor are worse conditions.

Interesting. You believe that it is okay in order to potentially save other lives. So would you support infanticide if the survival of the child would lead to a family's starvation?

 

[Idea]

Interesting. You believe that it is okay in order to potentially save other lives. So would you support infanticide if the survival of the child would lead to a family's starvation?

Life is sacred. In the competition between lives, sad as it may be, it's the context that matters. Every detail. Lives are not numbers, in fact the best aproximation we can reach to it's value is by what life supports. Without life, there is nothing, therefore everything that is lost when taking a life determines how much it matters, cold as it might sound. So, the question would revolve around who the family is, and more importantly, what potential they might have.

However, taking the hypothetical scenario of a complete blank slate family (so no traits that would their lives more or less valuable) and child, and assuming the the family's financial condition will not cause the child to die either way, then the family ought to attempt every other option before pondering taking the child's life. Only if none exists, then in this blank slate family case, I would sadly have to say they could kill the child. It would still be a horrible act, and a sin of the highest order, but when one does not have option, a lesser of two evils may have to be chosen. If this family happens to have religious beliefs, they ought to of course, confess and repent.

 

[Rachael of the Shire]

I can't say that I agree with you. But you are entitled to your beliefs.

 

[Idea]

Very well. Thanks for hearing me out, regardless, I appreciate a good civil debate

 

[Axel The Englishman]

Finally! People are respecting the opinions of others.

 

[Borkus Lazorus]

By the way, I'm pro-choice.

Rachael of the Shire, if you geniunely honestly believe that abortion is wrong and that you are taking a human life, (regardless of whether it's in the stage of a zygote, blastocyte, embryo or foetus) then, it's pretty clear that the real-world is engaging in mass genocide, right?

If you believe that a foetus holds the exact same rights to living as we do, then, why aren't there mass-revolutions all over the world? I'm not calling you a hypocrite or anything but........

I mean, look at these statistics.

Abortion statistics in the United States - Wikipedia

That's at least 100,000 people dead per year in the US. 100,000 human beings per year slaughtered like pigs. Totalling all of this up, you have to add up the death toll of every genocide listed on wikipedia to get near the number of 51 million babies slaughtered each year.

I don't see how you should even try to debate about this issue of lives being killed. Trying to politely talk about genocide of people occuring is like having a gypsy talk with a Nazi politely about the slaughter of their people. You should cry out against the government because this is the worse mass-murder happening right now.

Why aren't you doing more about it if you were serious?

Anyway, that's why I honestly can't take the position of a pro-lifer. Anyway, just here to voice my opinion, that's all.

 

[Rachael of the Shire]

By the way, I'm pro-choice.

Rachael of the Shire, if you geniunely honestly believe that abortion is wrong and that you are taking a human life, (regardless of whether it's in the stage of a zygote, blastocyte, embryo or foetus) then, it's pretty clear that the real-world is engaging in mass genocide, right?

If you believe that a foetus holds the exact same rights to living as we do, then, why aren't there mass-revolutions all over the world? I'm not calling you a hypocrite or anything but........

I mean, look at these statistics.

Abortion statistics in the United States - Wikipedia

That's at least 100,000 people dead per year in the US. 100,000 human beings per year slaughtered like pigs. Totalling all of this up, you have to add up the death toll of every genocide listed on wikipedia to get near the number of 51 million babies slaughtered each year.

I don't see how you should even try to debate about this issue of lives being killed. Trying to politely talk about genocide of people occuring is like having a gypsy talk with a Nazi politely about the slaughter of their people. You should cry out against the government because this is the worse mass-murder happening right now.

Why aren't you doing more about it if you were serious?

Anyway, that's why I honestly can't take the position of a pro-lifer. Anyway, just here to voice my opinion, that's all.

So you admit that it is murder.

There is only so much that one woman can do. Also, personal insults are one of the lowest things you can resort to in a debate.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Why aren't you doing more about it if you were serious?

Anti-abortion violence - Wikipedia
And because a 16 year old can't vote, can't be elected to a position to make policy changes, and is unwilling to engage in violence and, according to the article, terrorism.

 

[ShadowPrincess163]

You should never punish a child, born or unborn, for the choices of an adult.