Are they Pro-life Christians or just Pro-birth Christians?

[cpwill]

Better to enable women to not produce those children at all if that's what's best for their welfare and those they care for and are responsible to. Then you can both be right. Right?

I'm not against birth control at all. But, once the child is there, killing it is wrong, and I have no problem with laws saying so. Where you and I disagree is that I consider children in the womb to be children, and you do not.

 

[Lursa]

I'm not against birth control at all. But, once the child is there, killing it is wrong, and I have no problem with laws saying so. Where you and I disagree is that I consider children in the womb to be children, and you do not.

The child isnt anywhere. You would demand she gestate and produce a child...unnecessarily and for your own purposes/beliefs. Certainly not for the welfare of the individual woman, all women, her family and friends, those she has obligations to, or even society. Why on earth would the woman's life and moral agency and "self" be risked, to produce a child at the expense of all those others?

 

[Gordy327]

I'm not against birth control at all. But, once the child is there, killing it is wrong,

Says who? By what authority says its wrong?

and I have no problem with laws saying so.

laws which do effectively restrict the rights and autonomy of the woman gestating it. Do you think it's right or wrong to force someone to have their body & bodily resources used to support another?

Where you and I disagree is that I consider children in the womb to be children, and you do not.

Children are Children at birth. Not before.

 

[choiceone]

Do you really believe people do not possess the right to disagree with you? That's remarkable.

Not at all. On an objective empirical basis, the only reason an implanted embryo/pre- or non-viable fetus even appears to have life is that the woman's live body is providing it with oxygen, nutrients, homeostasis, etc. Her body's organs substitute for the organs that the embryo hasn't yet formed/is in the process of forming, and the fetus hasn't yet developed. She is causing its life and organ development. If she dies, it automatically dies, but if it dies, she'll go right on living if her body naturally expels it.

There is no "interpretation" about this - it is an objective empirical fact that can be objectively empirically demonstrated to be such. This is not about a difference of opinion. You can believe anything you want about pregnancy, and express that as a belief or opinion, because it's just a belief. But you don't have the right to claim that your belief is objective empirical fact if it doesn't fit the objective empirical evidence.

 

[choiceone]

Are you truly unable to understand the difference between:

"I think a large welfare state is not beneficial or appropriate at the federal level"​

​

And

​

"I think we shouldn't let people kill children"​

​

I mean, because, we could try to explain it to you... but if you honestly can't understand the difference between those two statements, I'm not sure it would do much good, as they would mostly be self-evident, and require the giving up of assumptions such as "Everyone Secretly Agrees With Me On How Economics Works".

An implanted embryo/fetus is not a child and it doesn't have a life separate from the woman's - there is only one life involved, and it's hers. That is an objectively, empirically demonstrable fact. So I don't understand how anyone can imagine it is even remotely sane to claim that an abortion is the killing of a child, any more than an amputation of a leg is the killing of the leg's life.

 

[NatMorton]

Not at all. On an objective empirical basis, the only reason an implanted embryo/pre- or non-viable fetus even appears to have life is that the woman's live body is providing it with oxygen, nutrients, homeostasis, etc. Her body's organs substitute for the organs that the embryo hasn't yet formed/is in the process of forming, and the fetus hasn't yet developed. She is causing its life and organ development. If she dies, it automatically dies, but if it dies, she'll go right on living if her body naturally expels it.

There is no "interpretation" about this - it is an objective empirical fact that can be objectively empirically demonstrated to be such. This is not about a difference of opinion. You can believe anything you want about pregnancy, and express that as a belief or opinion, because it's just a belief. But you don't have the right to claim that your belief is objective empirical fact if it doesn't fit the objective empirical evidence.

Yet here you are declaring your opinion that a fetus is not a life as "objective empirical fact."

 

[cpwill]

The child isnt anywhere.

That is where we disagree

 

[cpwill]

An implanted embryo/fetus is not a child

We disagree, and, until pro choice movement can internalize that people disagree with it on this point, it will continue to make silly arguments like those in the OP.

 

[NatMorton]

We disagree, and, until pro choice movement can internalize that people disagree with it on this point, it will continue to make silly arguments like those in the OP.

They do seem particularly obtuse when it comes to recognizing their own opinions as opinions.

 

[cpwill]

Says who? By what authority says its wrong?

For the same reason it's wrong to kill a three year old.

laws which do effectively restrict the rights and autonomy of the woman gestating it. Do you think it's right or wrong to force someone to have their body & bodily resources used to support another?

No I'm generally fine with things like child support.

Children are Children at birth. Not before.

We disagree, and, until the pro choice movement can internalize that people disagree with it on this point, it will continue to make silly arguments like those in the OP.

Flip it and take a look to see what I mean. If someone came in here and argued that people who favored a generous welfare state claimed to want to help the poor, but, actually just wanted to control black people - and we know this because they are pro killing disproportionately black, disproportionately poor children in the womb - would that strike you as a legitimate critique?

No more does the OPs.

 

[cpwill]

They do seem particularly obtuse when it comes to recognizing their own opinions as opinions.

It's a common blindness on the left, because they rarely have to exist in places where their opinions are not affirmed as reality - which is why they score so badly on ideological Turing Tests. The same phenomena is (I think) increasingly happening on the right, which is worrying.

 

[NatMorton]

It's a common blindness on the left, because they rarely have to exist in places where their opinions are not affirmed as reality - which is why they score so badly on ideological Turing Tests. The same phenomena is (I think) increasingly happening on the right, which is worrying.

Such is life in a reality bubble.

You also see this behavior from people who are personally insecure. They're terrified of been proven wrong about anything as they (wrongly) take it as a sign of their own intellectual inferiority. It's much safer to pretend one's opinions are "facts" because facts are, well, facts and thus never wrong.

 

[BabaVoss]

It does seem the left will argue any facet of the abortion debate other than the actual point.

No, it doesn’t. You just have to listen.

For example, I don't know you. I also think it would be wrong for someone to end your life, yet that concern is in no way less credible because I feel absolutely no obligation to feed, clothe, or house you.

False equivalence.
What gives a blastocyst “a life” when you have no such concerns about discarding sperm and egg?
Why does a zygote’s existence give someone else the right to exert control over a woman’s body?
Why would the government have that same control?
It is not rational to extend the same rights that citizens have to a clump of cells contained within one of those citizens. Superseding that citizens rights makes little sense.

The abortion debate is not about privacy. It's not about social welfare programs. It's not about religion. It's about coming to agreement on what is and what is not a working defintion of human life (with basic human rights). Anything else is noise.

No, it actually is about religion and/or controlling women - assuming the pro-brith person is being honest. For the religious, it comes down to the existence of a “soul”. One second before fertilization and one second after, there is no discernible change in the makeup of that clump of cells. Nothing magical happened UNLESS you believe in a “soul”. Should we grant those same protections to sperm and egg?

There is an argument to be made about granting “basic human rights” somewhere along that development process, but that only makes sense long after the point of fertilization. Many fertilized eggs fail to properly implant - or fail for a myriad of normal biological reasons. The forced-birth folks have zero concerns about all these lost lives, and that makes their arguments empty. They simply want to control women, or it is a religious argument. Either way, it is inconstant with true personal liberty.

The issue is a personal one. The government shroud not be involved at all.

 

[NatMorton]

There is an argument to be made about granting “basic human rights” somewhere along that development process,

You're both disagreeing and agreeing with me. Make up your mind.

 

[Yes_Minister]

We've had this debate before, as you well know. There are states that have established legal personhood for the fetus. In those states, fetal life trumps the woman's right to privacy. If you want to be reminded of those discussions, search for posts with "Human Life Protection Act" authored by me. I won't be repeating those arguments here.

So if a woman is sexually assaulted and impregnated against her will, does the fetus override the woman's rights in that case?

 

[NatMorton]

So if a woman is sexually assaulted and impregnated against her will, does the fetus override the woman's rights in that case?

My opinion is no.

 

[Gordy327]

Yet here you are declaring your opinion that a fetus is not a life as "objective empirical fact."

No one is arguing whether it's a "life" or not. It's irrelevant. The issue is when it becomes a legal person with rights. That point is birth.

My opinion is no.

Why should the circumstances resulting in pregnancy make any difference?

Such is life in a reality bubble.

You also see this behavior from people who are personally insecure. They're terrified of been proven wrong about anything as they (wrongly) take it as a sign of their own intellectual inferiority. It's much safer to pretend one's opinions are "facts" because facts are, well, facts and thus never wrong.

Sounds like projection is going on.

 

[Gordy327]

For the same reason it's wrong to kill a three year old.

What is that "reason?" What authority says its wrong to abort?

No I'm generally fine with things like child support.

Child support happens after birth. It's gestation that is the issue. Is it right or wrong to force someone to have their body and bodily resources used to support another?

We disagree, and, until the pro choice movement can internalize that people disagree with it on this point, it will continue to make silly arguments like those in the OP.

Disagree if you want. It just means you're wrong. "Child" is typically defined as a person between birth and puberty. Common layman usage of the term "child" is often used as an umbrella term.

Flip it and take a look to see what I mean. If someone came in here and argued that people who favored a generous welfare state claimed to want to help the poor, but, actually just wanted to control black people - and we know this because they are pro killing disproportionately black, disproportionately poor children in the womb - would that strike you as a legitimate critique?

That makes no sense and us basically a non-sequitur.

 

[Lursa]

We disagree, and, until pro choice movement can internalize that people disagree with it on this point, it will continue to make silly arguments like those in the OP.

People make lots of unfounded or careless or irrational or indoctrinated arguments or opinions. That doesnt mean they should be forced on others, harming others, taking the consent of others.

People have belief systems. They have a right to those. They dont necessarily have the right to impose those beliefs on those that dont believe the same.

 

[Lursa]

You're both disagreeing and agreeing with me. Make up your mind.

It is about opinion. In the question of morality and harm...where is the greatest, since unborn and born cannot be treated equally, practically or legally? I have posted my moral opinion many times and it clearly lists how recognizing a right to life for the unborn results in pain, suffering for women, risks life and health, destroys her status in society by removing her consent to her own life, her moral agency in minimization of self-determination and in society and disrespect as a 2nd class citizen, etc etc etc for woman. And also impacts, risks harm and suffering and loss, to those in her life and to whom she has obligations to. So...impacts many others.

The loss of the unborn is not affected by nor affects any of those things. No one considers these observations "desirable," just factual.

Morality can be finding a balance and my view presents those realities. Altho I value the unborn, I value all born people more.

And @cpwill but he's seen all this before. Remember the married poster's example where she said that doctors told her having another child would likely kill her, after the close call she already had, and her painful dangerous pregnancy? You said she should be denied an abortion should she ever accidentally get pregnant again. It's hard sometimes to believe that many of pro-life's beliefs are religious in nature.

 

[cpwill]

That makes no sense

Congratulations, you are correct! The OP's argument indeed does not make sense, which you recognized as soon as its logic was turned on you

 

[cpwill]

People make lots of unfounded or careless or irrational or indoctrinated arguments or opinions. That doesnt mean they should be forced on others, harming others, taking the consent of others

People have belief systems. They have a right to those. They dont necessarily have the right to impose those beliefs on those that dont believe the same.

On the contrary - we do indeed believe we have a right to have Law in this country.

 

[Gordy327]

Congratulations, you are correct!

Naturally. You finally get it.

The OP's argument indeed does not make sense, which you recognized as soon as its logic was turned on you

No, I said you don't make sense. You didn't offer any logic nor refutation of any of my posts. You even dodged questions posed to you. I wonder not wonder why that is?

 

[Gordy327]

On the contrary - we do indeed believe we have a right to have Law in this country.

What does the law say about abortion being right or wrong? What is the legal basis to restrict abortion? In most states, women can still have an abortion without due process of law.

 

[Lursa]

On the contrary - we do indeed believe we have a right to have Law in this country.

Didnt say they dont. Your drive-by is pretty empty.