Why are people who are against abortion called Pro Life?

[Lursa]

Consciousness confers personhood because it enables moral agency and its potential holds value because it represents the capacity to develop moral agency. The unborn is a person and abortion is wrong because it is an act that intentionally and deliberately ends another person's life.

Who says? Where are your citations? It may enable moral agency (no comment) but the woman HAS moral agency and forcing her to remain pregnant against her will takes that away. So...that's morally wrong right there.

 

[weaver2]

Consciousness confers personhood because it enables moral agency and its potential holds value because it represents the capacity to develop moral agency. The unborn is a person and abortion is wrong because it is an act that intentionally and deliberately ends another person's life.

If consciousness confers person-hood then abortions at the embryo stage are not aborting a "person".

 

[Lursa]

If consciousness confers person-hood then abortions at the embryo stage are not aborting a "person".

And killing dolphins, whales, elephants, many primates, other mammals, crows, parrots, etc. is also immoral.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Every time the abortion discussion pops up, I like to point out this quote by Dave Barnhart, a traditional Christian pastor:

"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for.
They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct.

Unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy, unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike.

They allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn.

It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you.
You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone.
They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

 

[collected]

Consciousness confers personhood because it enables moral agency and its potential holds value because it represents the capacity to develop moral agency.

If consciousness confers person-hood then abortions at the embryo stage are not aborting a "person".

...And its potential holds value because it represents the capacity to develop moral agency as stated in the above quote.

 

[collected]

And killing dolphins, whales, elephants, many primates, other mammals, crows, parrots, etc. is also immoral.

I'll rewrite it to be more specific then.

Consciousness confers personhood in humans because it enables moral agency. Its potential holds value as it represents the capacity to develop moral agency.

Consciousness doesn't confer personhood for other species because they don't have the capacity to develop moral agency. If another species had the capacity to develop moral agency, then they too would have personhood.

 

[Lursa]

I'll rewrite it to be more specific then.

Consciousness confers personhood in humans because it enables moral agency. Its potential holds value as it represents the capacity to develop moral agency.

Consciousness doesn't confer personhood for other species because they don't have the capacity to develop moral agency. If another species had the capacity to develop moral agency, then they too would have personhood.

Citations? For all of it. The part about 'other animals' sounds like complete BS without some kind of mystical foundation.

 

[weaver2]

...And its potential holds value because it represents the capacity to develop moral agency as stated in the above quote.

Potential is not reality and conservativeshave historically given little attention, credence, money or respect to "potential". Why does this potential begin at 6 weeks, not 1 week, not as sperm or as ovum. Why this specific potential. Potential exists in many places, at many times and in many forms. Your form of potential, an embryo at 6 weeks, is no more reasonable than the ova that may develop in a 2 year old when she reaches puberty.

Anti-abortion advocates do not even find the potential of a 2 year old worthy of support, let alone protection of their already born lives. There is no outcry to save the children from the increasing domestic violence in states that have banned abortion. No programs to combat the increased poverty; no clinics to care for the increased child births, no support for WIC or Medicaid or TANF.

Potential is just a shiny new word discovered by the anti-abortion advocates to fling around so they look like they care about others lives. They don't. What conservatives care about is making sure men make the rules and women follow them.

 

[weaver2]

Consciousness doesn't confer personhood for other species because they don't have the capacity to develop moral agency. If another species had the capacity to develop moral agency, then they too would have personhood.

Jane Goodall would disagree and for good reason.

 

[collected]

Potential is not reality and conservativeshave historically given little attention, credence, money or respect to "potential". Why does this potential begin at 6 weeks, not 1 week, not as sperm or as ovum.

The potential (through positive action or inaction) begins at the embryo stage because that's when a new human organism is formed.

Why this specific potential. Potential exists in many places, at many times and in many forms. Your form of potential, an embryo at 6 weeks, is no more reasonable than the ova that may develop in a 2 year old when she reaches puberty.

I never said six weeks. You're putting words in my mouth that I never said. This specific potential enables moral agency.

Anti-abortion advocates do not even find the potential of a 2 year old worthy of support, let alone protection of their already born lives. There is no outcry to save the children from the increasing domestic violence in states that have banned abortion. No programs to combat the increased poverty; no clinics to care for the increased child births, no support for WIC or Medicaid or TANF.

Those things are mutually exclusive to whether or not abortion is moral.

Potential is just a shiny new word discovered by the anti-abortion advocates to fling around so they look like they care about others lives. They don't. What conservatives care about is making sure men make the rules and women follow them.

Red herring.

Jane Goodall would disagree and for good reason.

Don't care. Give me the good reasons.

 

[Lursa]

The potential (through positive action or inaction) begins at the embryo stage because that's when a new human organism is formed.

That's the exact same criteria for any mammal...do they have moral agency? The potential for moral agency? Why arent other unborn or born mammals qualified for "personhood?" This particular criteria doesnt explain.

I never said six weeks. You're putting words in my mouth that I never said. This specific potential enables moral agency.

See above, still would like to know why?

Those things are mutually exclusive to whether or not abortion is moral.

Still waiting for you to tell me what authority says that abortion is immoral.

Don't care. Give me the good reasons.

Jane Goodall and her research into chimpanzees seems pretty relevant here...as 'good reasons' to consider. Why dont you tell us why not?

 

[collected]

That's the exact same criteria for any mammal...do they have moral agency? The potential for moral agency? Why arent other unborn or born mammals qualified for "personhood?" This particular criteria doesnt explain.

No. They do not have moral agency or potential for moral agency.

See above, still would like to know why?

After I get an answer as to why birth confers personhood.

Still waiting for you to tell me what authority says that abortion is immoral.

To rely on such would be an argument from authority, a well known logical fallacy.

Jane Goodall and her research into chimpanzees seems pretty relevant here...as 'good reasons' to consider. Why dont you tell us why not?

Your question,"Why dont you tell us why not?" fits evasion technique #3.

Questioning the question by:

• requesting clarification
• reflecting the question back to the questioner, for example saying "you tell me"

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evasion_(ethics)#Evasion_techniques

 

[Lursa]

No. They do not have moral agency or potential for moral agency.

Why not? Please support your claim.

After I get an answer as to why birth confers personhood.

I never made that claim. I explained why it was a reasonable and logical moral and legal benchmark to recognize personhood. I dont assume inherent personhood for anyone...it's a man-made concept and status. Hence my question that you refuse to answer.

Odd that you cant. Why cant you?

Please provide citations on your usage of or definition of personhood and the legal or moral reasoning that supports it?

To rely on such would be an argument from authority, a well known logical fallacy.

OK, then what moral foundation would you accept? Which are you working from? Cite it/them please. Otherwise, we only have your personal belief or opinion.

Your question,"Why dont you tell us why not?" fits evasion technique #3.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evasion_(ethics)#Evasion_techniques

Her research stands and is available. So you can stop making excuses and bring a normal debate counterargument to refute it. Why wont you?

 

[weaver2]

The potential (through positive action or inaction) begins at the embryo stage because that's when a new human organism is formed.
I never said six weeks. You're putting words in my mouth that I never said. This specific potential enables moral agency.
Those things are mutually exclusive to whether or not abortion is moral.
Red herring.
Don't care. Give me the good reasons.

You desperately need lessons in genetics, embryology and logic. Reading up on Jane Goodall wouldn't hurt either.

 

[Ginger Ale]

Every time the abortion discussion pops up, I like to point out this quote by Dave Barnhart, a traditional Christian pastor:

"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for.
They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct.

Unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy, unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike.

They allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn.

It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you.
You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone.
They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Wow!! Spot on!!

 

[weaver2]

The potential (through positive action or inaction) begins at the embryo stage because that's when a new human organism is formed.

The potential is formed in the sperm and in the ovum long before conception.

I never said six weeks. You're putting words in my mouth that I never said. This specific potential enables moral agency.

The words are there in the support of 6 week bans.

Those things are mutually exclusive to whether or not abortion is moral.

They were an example of how little the antiabortion advocates care about the actual born child. It was a comment on the lack of morality exhibited by conservatives.See post #604

Red herring.

"Potential is just a shiny new word discovered by the anti-abortion advocates to fling around so they look like they care about others lives. They don't. What conservatives care about is making sure men make the rules and women follow them" ......... is a statement of fact not a red herring or a blue herring or a pickled herring or God forbid, a herring in gefiltefish.

Don't care. Give me the good reasons.

You have to look up Jane Goodall's research on primates. I'm tired of posting factual information for you to ignore.

 

[weaver2]

Every time the abortion discussion pops up, I like to point out this quote by Dave Barnhart, a traditional Christian pastor:

"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for.
They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct.

Unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy, unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike.

They allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn.

It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you.
You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone.
They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

 

[weaver2]

Every time the abortion discussion pops up, I like to point out this quote by Dave Barnhart, a traditional Christian pastor:

"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for.
They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct.

Unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy, unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike.

They allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn.

It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you.
You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone.
They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Thank you for posting that observation. It's one of the most preceptive and honest statements about the "fetus only" crowd. Especially the lines:
They allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn.

 

[quip]

The potential (through positive action or inaction) begins at the embryo stage because that's when a new human organism is formed.

Then you've simply offered up an unconvincing, potential argument. The crux of it conspicuously suffers from your emotive projection of (moral) potentiality onto embryos writ large.

 

[choiceone]

No. They do not have moral agency or potential for moral agency.

I'm not going to try to make non-humans have the same moral agency, but the fact is that some dogs are good Marines and are good for the handicapped, etc., while some are not, and some dogs choose to be helpful, just as one can find certain altruistic birds, etc. You can't reduce this to genetic determinism for non-humans any more than you can ignore some genetic determinism IN humans.

After I get an answer as to why birth confers personhood.


To rely on such would be an argument from authority, a well known logical fallacy.



Your question,"Why dont you tell us why not?" fits evasion technique #3.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evasion_(ethics)#Evasion_techniques

You do not understand the difference between actuality and potentiality. An embryo is actually not a person, though it might become one, but an infant is actually a person.

You must be very young to overvalue potential so much.

 

[quip]

The potential (through positive action or inaction) begins at the embryo stage because that's when a new human organism is formed.

More to the point, you do realize potentiality, by definition and logical extension, is not always met?

You've yet to establish why the embryo is required to meet it's potential. Simply declaring it as such begs the very question: Why should a woman fulfill the embryo's potential?