Pro lifers should be more honest with the label they call themselves

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 9
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
If a white person who really liked BLM (and BLM is their main issue) didn’t want black people getting killed by the police because they viewed a black person as their genuine equal, I should have no problem (and they should have no problem) with me calling them a Black Rights Activist.

So pro lifers; as people that are born, should have no problem accepting the, “Zygote Rights Activist” label because you believe a zygote is your equal. And that’s fine.
Just be honest and don’t be afraid of looking foolish; there are many people that agree with you on this.

You will turn many (maybe most) people off from your movement, but at least you are being honest.

And you should not be offended or try and weasel your way out of the label, “Zygote Rights Activist” because you believe a Zygote is your equal.  You believe neither one of you should get homicided, and currently zygotes are legally homicided in most states, and you want to end that.

So just accept the label, "Zygote Rights activist".

Me; I don't view a zygote as my equal; I don't even view a 3 year old kid as my equal.  If I had to pick between burning myself alive to the death or burning a 3 year old alive to the death; I'm picking the 3 year old (because of personal bias). If the typical person is unwilling to spend $1/day to save the life of a starving 3 year old from dying of starvation (burning to death takes a few hours; starving to death takes weeks so it's more painful), then why should I be willing to give my life to save somebody else?

If I had to pick betweena 5 year old kid dying or a 25 year old dying; I'm picking the one that doesn't have a job yet (the 5 year old kid).

People prefer the 5 year old because they are younger; by believing this, they would then believe that they lose value as they age.

If you think young people are more valuable than adults, next time you are trying to hire someone for a job, hire Timmy the 2 year old from daycare.  

People love babies because they are cute.  I don't like babies because they are useless and loud and often can't even speak English.

I like rich; smart; independent, fast.

I like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Bill Gates.  They are rich; their companies produce.

Socialism is bad; I prefer capitalism.

Now I wouldn't have the 5 year old kid die if the alternative is nothing; I respect a 5 year old's right to not get murdered.

But I'm just saying I would rather khave this person stay alive:


then this person alive:


Cute to me is a euphemism for the intersection of small, good looking, and stupid.

I don't like stupid; I like smart.  I don't like poor; I like rich.  I don't like dependence.  I like independence.

I don't like Chuch Music; I like Rock and Roll.

I don't like CA and AL; I like NV and FL.

If I had to pick between Person A or Person B dying:


The ugly one has got to go.  I wouldn't want the ugly one dying for no reason; but if I had to pick one dying, the strong deserve to live more than the weak.

I like winners; not losers!

In fact, I would go a step further.  If Group 1 or Group 2 had to die:

Group 1: Elon Musk and Bill Gates

Group 2: 10 homeless people

I would rather have Group 2 die.  1 Person that significently positively changes the world deserves the right to live more than 500 homeless people.  With 500 homeless people not existing; the world becomes virtually unchanged.  Bill Gates doesn't exist; no more Microsoft.

It's possible for someone's extrinsic worth to be more than their worth for being a human being.

Everyone's intrinsic value to me is A+B+C.  A is their worth just for being human (Bill Gates has the same A value as a homeless guy).  B is what they have currently done for society - what they took from society and what we can reasonably expect them to take from society (B for Bill Gates is thousands of times the value of A for Bill Gates).  A 12 year old kid's B value is higher than a 3 year old kid; they will be in public school for less.  C is an unknown quantity; it's what they might do in the future.

A+B+C=Intrinsic Value.  Extrinsic Value=B.

Not all born innocent people deserve the right to live equally, but the A value for every person is equal and positive.  If you do a crime as bad as murder, rape, or similar, for you; B=-A, and C=0.  You can't be freed, and it costs too much money to keep someone alive who has 0 intrinsic worth, so you should get killed by beheading, with your blood and organs being used to save the lives of Patriots!  If you are a left winger, I can replace the bolded words with low income people in the hospital who are disproportionally people of color.


#2
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
People who call themselves pro-life seem to stop caring about life as soon as they are born. They generally oppose universal healthcare, social security for single mothers, cheap and accesible education and the living wage. More grotesquely many support the detention and deportation of immigrants, the protection of a corrupt and trigger happy police system, many even support foreign invasions and bombing, not to mention the diplomatic and military support of genocides like the one in Gaza. 

I somewhat agree with you in saying that not every death is equal. For example, it would be less unfortunate if a homeless person died in an accident than a doctor, because the death of the doctor also carries with it another layer of loss for society, maybe even leading to further death down the line caused by lack of said doctor's presence. Or how the assasination of an important public figure can lead to public unrest or even war. Though I don't think that the rich as a rule are more valuable than the poor. And that is because one doesn't become rich by providing society orders of magnitude more value than the working classman. One becomes rich by syphoning in the value created by the working class. 
#3
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,625
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
People prefer the 5 year old because they are younger; by believing this, they would then believe that they lose value as they age.
Thats because historically, people did lose value with age.

The woman's value by society was mostly considered in ability to give birth to lots of children, which was the highest at ages from when she gets ability to get pregnant to about 22.

The older woman got, essentially more undesirable she became.

Giving birth to lots of children was important because 50% of children died before becoming adults.

So woman had to give birth to 6 children for 3 of them to survive.

It was the time when high birth rates were main condition for survival.

The arguments which you are presenting are a bit cruel, but one can understand your point of view and it is difficult to argue against.

Personally, if I have to choose between saving person A or person B, it would be very difficult for me to make any choice.

I just dont have a way of weighting the value of human lives, some of which might be contributing more to the benefit of society which we dont know about, some of which might be harming society in unknown ways.
#4
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
This is a really good argument, acknowledging that we have the same instincts as people who lived in a world without technology, so the instinct that used to be a fit trait for survival is now an unfit trait.
#5
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Hey, Trump, Biden and myself know  people gain value with age.
Topic's author
#6
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Benjamin
They generally oppose universal healthcare, social security for single mothers, cheap and accesible education and the living wage. More grotesquely many support the detention and deportation of immigrants, the protection of a corrupt and trigger happy police system, many even support foreign invasions and bombing, not to mention the diplomatic and military support of genocides like the one in Gaza. 
That's (mostly) just a product of fiscal conservatism; trying to cut government spending.

Are you saying it's a contradiction to be pro life and fiscally conservative?

Though I don't think that the rich as a rule are more valuable than the poor. 

For example, it would be less unfortunate if a homeless person died in an accident than a doctor
These 2 statements generally contradict each other.  The doctor became rich by helping others.

Being rich is good and every American should strive to be rich even if they aren't.

Wealth is good; money is good.  If you disagree, give your money to a homeless guy.
Topic's author
#7
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
The arguments which you are presenting are a bit cruel, but one can understand your point of view and it is difficult to argue against.
Well, it's not wrong, so the tone is irrelevant.

I just dont have a way of weighting the value of human lives, some of which might be contributing more to the benefit of society which we dont know about, some of which might be harming society in unknown ways.
Who deserves the right to live more?  Bill Gates (philanthropist) or Jeffery Epstein (a guy who did things so bad to children that not even NAMBLA supports Epstein)?

Saying both of these people deserve the right to live equally is just incorrect.
#8
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
@Benjamin
People are selectively moral.

Always have been.

Probably always will be, for as long as it's written into our DNA.


Labels such as "Pro life" are just self adhesive tokens of insincerity.

Easily peeled off.
#9
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,625
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Saying both of these people deserve the right to live equally is just incorrect.
You would think that, but I dont.

And those are the cases where a lot is known, with just some unknowns.

Ultimately, being the judge of the world is a difficult job.

And I wouldnt want to be the judge of the world because mistakes and unknowns go with each other, and plenty of unknowns translate into plenty of mistakes.