I'm Pro-Life: Change My Mind

[Nathan.22]

If you are against abortion, you are actually anti-life. Calling your position "pro-life" is such a sham.

Interesting take, care to elaborate?

 

[code1211]

I do understand how a if / then proposition works. And in all cases the conclusion must follow from the premise. Which is what I am pointing out. Yours fails to do so as, There really is no reason to assume that rights must be equal among all humans. Regardless of any condition of humanness.

In fact to return the favour, IF more harm is done under the guise of humanness , THEN is it really humanness.

Regarding your last question, many would argue that "humanness" is condition that promotes more harm. Man's Inhumanity to man comes to mind.

To those folks who supporting this position, IF more harm is done, THEN it really IS humanness.

Back to point we are discussing, IF you reject the premise defined as being impossible, THEN you do so. However, IF the premise defined is the one under which the consideration is conducted, THEN the premise must be accepted to proceed.

There might be an impossibility defined as the premise.

IF the only thing that came out of my butt were rainbows, THEN people would be happy when I fart. The premise is obviously impossible and ridiculous. I have heard this particular IF/THEN used to illustrate things being ridiculous.

However, IF the notion that human life is valued is accepted, THEN ALL human life must be valued. This is not ridiculous. However, you might disagree with it. You are free to do so.

As soon as you discount the value of human life, then many things are acceptable that are not acceptable if you value human life. That is all the premise defines.

 

[vegas giants]

Regarding your last question, many would argue that "humanness" is condition that promotes more harm. Man's Inhumanity to man comes to mind.

To those folks who supporting this position, IF more harm is done, THEN it really IS humanness.

Back to point we are discussing, IF you reject the premise defined as being impossible, THEN you do so. However, IF the premise defined is the one under which the consideration is conducted, THEN the premise must be accepted to proceed.

There might be an impossibility defined as the premise.

IF the only thing that came out of my butt were rainbows, THEN people would be happy when I fart. The premise is obviously impossible and ridiculous. I have heard this particular IF/THEN used to illustrate things being ridiculous.

However, IF the notion that human life is valued is accepted, THEN ALL human life must be valued. This is not ridiculous. However, you might disagree with it. You are free to do so.

As soon as you discount the value of human life, then many things are acceptable that are not acceptable if you value human life. That is all the premise defines.

All human life should NOT be valued

 

[Dacke]

Interesting take, care to elaborate?

The only life involved in an abortion is that of the unwillingly pregnant woman's. The fetus is just a potential human being and demandoing an actual human to sacrifice their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for it is anti-life as it prevents the woman from living her life the way she wants to and strips her of all her rights. All to favour the non-life that is a fetus.

 

[soylentgreen]

Regarding your last question, many would argue that "humanness" is condition that promotes more harm. Man's Inhumanity to man comes to mind.

To those folks who supporting this position, IF more harm is done, THEN it really IS humanness.

Back to point we are discussing, IF you reject the premise defined as being impossible, THEN you do so. However, IF the premise defined is the one under which the consideration is conducted, THEN the premise must be accepted to proceed.

There might be an impossibility defined as the premise.

IF the only thing that came out of my butt were rainbows, THEN people would be happy when I fart. The premise is obviously impossible and ridiculous. I have heard this particular IF/THEN used to illustrate things being ridiculous.

However, IF the notion that human life is valued is accepted, THEN ALL human life must be valued. This is not ridiculous. However, you might disagree with it. You are free to do so.

As soon as you discount the value of human life, then many things are acceptable that are not acceptable if you value human life. That is all the premise defines.

You have heard people say that your opinion here does not work. You have been given various reasons as to why there can be no such thing as equal rights in abortion. I tried through a thought experiment which you refuse to try and instead simply made up excuses. You miss the point that in abortion it is more a case of one right stops when in contact with another.

However, IF the notion that human life is valued is accepted, THEN ALL human life must be valued.

Quick thought experiment, You are given sophies choice. Choose who will live between an 8 year old girl and a rapist.

 

[Lursa]

I have seen a lot of interesting replies and haven’t been on here much recently but it’s good to get some different perspectives, I’m still pro life but I’m glad to see that at least some people have put great thought into their opinions

I'd still like your 'perspective' on this post from much earlier, as it responds to your OP and speaks to some of your comments since. Your responses to the questions would be informative:

​

What authority that Americans are obligated to follow says that the unborn have a right to life?​

​

See...it's a legal issue because the only way to change the status of abortion is thru laws. Not science. Science is objective, it applies no value. An unborn human is no more important than a 40 yr old human or a 3 yr old tiger. It's all the same biologically in terms of value.​

​

Laws and rights are subjective, they are man-made concepts. In America, we follow the Constitution and women have a right to have an abortion. A right to bodily autonomy, a right to due process, etc etc etc. There are several amendments that support that right, including the 4th, 5th, 10th, and 14th.​

​

The pro-choice position is the compromise:​

​

No woman is forced to give birth​

and​

no woman is forced to have an abortion.​

​

Each woman can act according to her own beliefs. Do you believe that is wrong? If so, why?​

​

The unborn have no rights. The legal side:​

​

Fourteenth Amendment​

Section 1​

​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

​

And​

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

www.law.cornell.edu

(a)In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.​

​

(b)As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.​

​

​

If you wish to discuss it on a moral level, here's a starting point:​

​

It's completely immoral IMO to force women to remain pregnant against their will when there is a safer medical procedure available:​

​

Abortion is 14 times safer than giving birth​

​

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.​

​

Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.​

Abortion safer than giving birth: study

Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.

www.reuters.com

​

Do you think it's moral to use force (of law, physical, etc) to make women remain pregnant against our will?​

​

I personally value the unborn, but I value all born people more.​

Was post 85

 

[code1211]

The only life involved in an abortion is that of the unwillingly pregnant woman's. The fetus is just a potential human being and demandoing an actual human to sacrifice their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for it is anti-life as it prevents the woman from living her life the way she wants to and strips her of all her rights. All to favour the non-life that is a fetus.

When does the "potential" life become an actual life?

 

[code1211]

You have heard people say that your opinion here does not work. You have been given various reasons as to why there can be no such thing as equal rights in abortion. I tried through a thought experiment which you refuse to try and instead simply made up excuses. You miss the point that in abortion it is more a case of one right stops when in contact with another.



Quick thought experiment, You are given sophies choice. Choose who will live between an 8 year old girl and a rapist.

You chose a particular proposition that I put forth. You then CHANGED the proposition to something that would be more easily opposed.

WHY?

I asked that you consider the things THAT I HAD POSTED and present arguments against them.

AS I HAVE POSTED REPEATEDLY, abortion provided on demand in our society is an imperative. We are in complete agreement on this.

Why are you arguing?

 

[soylentgreen]

You chose a particular proposition that I put forth. You then CHANGED the proposition to something that would be more easily opposed.

WHY?

I asked that you consider the things THAT I HAD POSTED and present arguments against them.

AS I HAVE POSTED REPEATEDLY, abortion provided on demand in our society is an imperative. We are in complete agreement on this.

Why are you arguing?

No, I changed nothing. All I have done is point out that you have assumed a relationship between premise and conclusion that does not exist outside of a bunch of philosophers talking theory.

And again you cannot keep hiding behind a claim of abortion on demand .

Your reasoning on the ideal of equality is false as well as your reasoning on how science backs you. Now I can add to that that your understanding of "value" itself is wrong. Value is not a fixed measurement. It cannot be applied equally to anything as value has no real existence except in the mind of the individual.

 

[Nathan.22]

The only life involved in an abortion is that of the unwillingly pregnant woman's. The fetus is just a potential human being and demandoing an actual human to sacrifice their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for it is anti-life as it prevents the woman from living her life the way she wants to and strips her of all her rights. All to favour the non-life that is a fetus.

When does life begin?

 

[Arlette]

The reason I am Pro life is because I believe that the termination of an innocent human life is of course horrible and that is a moral stance we all should have, so the question is when does life begin? if we want to determine whether abortions should be illegal or not this is the most important question. Me personally, I believe that life begins at conception which is why I'm pro life. I'm interested in hearing other people's opposing positions.

I'm not about to try in changing your mind. If you are against abortion, don't have one

 

[code1211]

No, I changed nothing. All I have done is point out that you have assumed a relationship between premise and conclusion that does not exist outside of a bunch of philosophers talking theory.

And again you cannot keep hiding behind a claim of abortion on demand .

Your reasoning on the ideal of equality is false as well as your reasoning on how science backs you. Now I can add to that that your understanding of "value" itself is wrong. Value is not a fixed measurement. It cannot be applied equally to anything as value has no real existence except in the mind of the individual.

You are departed from rationality.

 

[soylentgreen]

You are departed from rationality.

While you argue based on false reasons.

 

[Lursa]

I'm not about to try in changing your mind. If you are against abortion, don't have one

He doesnt seem to have any real argument or rebuttals.

 

[Arlette]

He doesnt seem to have any real argument or rebuttals.

Yeah. It looks more like he wants to change the minds of pro choice supporters than being open about changing his own position on abortion
The so called pro life position is actually an anti choice position

 

[Lursa]

Yeah. It looks more like he wants to change the minds of pro choice supporters than being open about changing his own position on abortion

IMO he wanted to 'blog' his position and then see if people could dispute it. Like many pro-life supporters, he ended up being (IMO) very uninformed on the facts surrounding abortion and the considerations...legal or moral...regarding women...to only post on his 'feelings' about the unborn.

And as is common, he got alot more counter information and perspectives than he expected. Most pro-life people believe they hold the moral High Ground and arent too open to seeing there's another side.

 

[code1211]

While you argue based on false reasons.

What the heck are you talking about?

 

[soylentgreen]

What the heck are you talking about?

You are going around in circles. I have explained this to you and your only reply seems to be that you will pretend not to understand.

 

[code1211]

You are going around in circles. I have explained this to you and your only reply seems to be that you will pretend not to understand.

I posted that IF you value a thing, then you value the thing. This was the point of discussion that YOU selected to discuss.

You posted that I was wrong because I'm not allowed to value that thing.

IF YOU are going to select a particular thing to address as YOU did, then why not address the thing that YOU selected.

 

[soylentgreen]

I posted that IF you value a thing, then you value the thing. This was the point of discussion that YOU selected to discuss.

You posted that I was wrong because I'm not allowed to value that thing.

IF YOU are going to select a particular thing to address as YOU did, then why not address the thing that YOU selected.

Please ignore all of your post because it is wrong.

You said;

However, IF the notion that human life is valued is accepted, THEN ALL human life must be valued.

. The point I wanted to make was the part where you asserted that all human life value must have equal value. Or if not then we have a lengthy discussion on just how you grade values.

I did not say you are not allowed to have a value. I said that you do not understand how value works. There can be no such thing as two values being equal. The fetus right to life and the womans right to self determination are two separate values.

It is possible for people to talk about the concept in theory. But in reality and in logic when a person must make a choice then they are by definition, weighing up their values. For example I can sit and think that I like vanilla and chocolate icecream equally. But if I had to make a choice between the two.....

 

[code1211]

Please ignore all of your post because it is wrong.

You said;



. The point I wanted to make was the part where you asserted that all human life value must have equal value. Or if not then we have a lengthy discussion on just how you grade values.

I did not say you are not allowed to have a value. I said that you do not understand how value works. There can be no such thing as two values being equal. The fetus right to life and the womans right to self determination are two separate values.

It is possible for people to talk about the concept in theory. But in reality and in logic when a person must make a choice then they are by definition, weighing up their values. For example I can sit and think that I like vanilla and chocolate icecream equally. But if I had to make a choice between the two.....

I think I see where your misunderstanding is rising from.

You are couching the valuation of human life in a comparison between the RELATIVE values of human life between a mother and her unborn child. I did not do this.

My statement, if it applies to this consideration at all, would indicate that both lives have value.

YOU, however, seem to be assigning a value to one form of human life and a greater value to a different form of human that you find using your own valuation to be MORE valuable.

I did not do this in that particular statement. You valuation is a consideration of relative worth's as determined in a societal framework that would dictate particular courses of action and rights awarded.

It seems that both you and I have arrived at the support for Abortion on demand as a societal consideration. We are in agreement.

You argue that not all human life is equal. Are you also arguing that some human life has NO VALUE whatever?

 

[soylentgreen]

I think I see where your misunderstanding is rising from.

You are couching the valuation of human life in a comparison between the RELATIVE values of human life between a mother and her unborn child. I did not do this.

My statement, if it applies to this consideration at all, would indicate that both lives have value.

YOU, however, seem to be assigning a value to one form of human life and a greater value to a different form of human that you find using your own valuation to be MORE valuable.

I did not do this in that particular statement. You valuation is a consideration of relative worth's as determined in a societal framework that would dictate particular courses of action and rights awarded.

It seems that both you and I have arrived at the support for Abortion on demand as a societal consideration. We are in agreement.

You argue that not all human life is equal. Are you also arguing that some human life has NO VALUE whatever?

No again you miss the point.

Value itself cannot be measured as you seem to think it can.

Your idea that both lives have value is not in dispute. Your idea however assets that both lives have equal value. And that is in dispute.

I did not argue that human life is not equal. I pointed out that it is possible to argue in theory equality in value. But you have missed the point that it can only be argued in theory, it cannot happen in reality.

 

[Omniscient]

The reason I am Pro life is because I believe that the termination of an innocent human life is of course horrible and that is a moral stance we all should have

right wing idealism

impractical

one sided absolutism

real life is situational and relative and ugly

 

[Omniscient]

This is not a chicken just because it has the beginning of a chicken in it.
View attachment 67314397

 

[Lursa]

No again you miss the point.

Value itself cannot be measured as you seem to think it can.

Your idea that both lives have value is not in dispute. Your idea however assets that both lives have equal value. And that is in dispute.

I did not argue that human life is not equal. I pointed out that it is possible to argue in theory equality in value. But you have missed the point that it can only be argued in theory, it cannot happen in reality.

People can consider born and unborn lives equal in their own minds...but in practice, legally and morally, they cannot be treated equally. That is the problem.

The govt cannot protect both lives/rights equally under the Const and more to the point, the unborn have no rights recognized to protect. As for morality, when you take into consideration pain and suffering and effects on the people and society around them, they cannot be treated equally morally either.

I value the unborn, but I value all born people more.