I'm Pro Life: Change my Mind

Author: Our_Boat_is_Right

Posts

Total: 500
#301
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@disgusted
Way to make up numbers out of thin air, disgusted. In the first Iraq War, only 4000 civilians were killed with 600 missing. And that's the total, not the ones killed by Americans.
In the Afghanistan war, only 31000 civilians were killed. Again, this is the total, not the amount killed by the US.
Regardless of the numbers, there is still no contradiction here. In war, there is sometimes no way to avoid killing the innocent, and that's a horrible thing. However, when the alternative is to let even more people die to evil groups like the Taliban, fighting the war still saves lives in the end.
#302
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@SirAnonymous
Way to make up numbers out of thin air, disgusted. In the first Iraq War, only 4000 civilians were killed with 600 missing. And that's the total, not the ones killed by Americans.
No-0ne other than an absolute liar is discussing the first Iraq battle of Kuwait, You wingnuts can only lie.
151,000 violent deaths as of June 2006 (per the Iraq Family Health Survey) to over a million (per the 2007 Opinion Research
The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan have taken a tremendous human toll on those countries. As of November 2018, at least 244,000 civilians in these three countries have died violent deaths as a result of the wars. Civilian deaths have also resulted from the US military operations in Yemen, Syria, Somalia and other countries in the U.S. war on terrorism.
How many innocent lives does it take before you defend them, hypocrite
In the Afghanistan war, only 31000 civilians were killed. Again, this is the total, not the amount killed by the US.
Regardless of the numbers, there is still no contradiction here. In war, there is sometimes no way to avoid killing the innocent, and that's a horrible thing. However, when the alternative is to let even more people die to evil groups like the Taliban, fighting the war still saves lives in the end.

You don't defend the innocent, you defend the right of men to rule, hypocrite.
Topic's author
#303
Our_Boat_is_Right
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 334
2
3
10
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Our_Boat_is_Right
2
3
10
-->
@disgusted
Evidence, evidence, evidence.  Can you use even a shred of evidence?  All I hear is feelings and whiny nonsense.

#304
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Remedial reading classes are your friend.
#305
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@disgusted
No-0ne other than an absolute liar is discussing the first Iraq battle of Kuwait
Blatantly false. I was always talking about the first Iraq war in Kuwait. Here is proof:
I support the Afghan war because our soldiers were saving Afghan lives from the Taliban. I support the first Iraq War because we saved Kuwaiti lives from the Iraqis. I don't know enough about the second Iraq war to have an opinion on it.
I said that I supported the war to save Kuwait, but not the second war with Iraq because I don't know enough about it to have an opinion on it.
You wingnuts can only lie.
What's a wingnut, and how is that in any way an insult?
151,000 violent deaths as of June 2006 (per the Iraq Family Health Survey) to over a million (per the 2007 Opinion Research
That's the casualties for the second Iraq war, which I explicitly said that I don't know enough about to have an opinion on it. This is totally irrelevant.
The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan have taken a tremendous human toll on those countries. As of November 2018, at least 244,000 civilians in these three countries have died violent deaths as a result of the wars. Civilian deaths have also resulted from the US military operations in Yemen, Syria, Somalia and other countries in the U.S. war on terrorism
That's the total number of civilian deaths in four wars, only two of which I actually support. Of the two I support, this is the actual amount of civilian deaths.
In the first Iraq War, only 4000 civilians were killed with 600 missing. And that's the total, not the ones killed by Americans.
In the Afghanistan war, only 31000 civilians were killed. Again, this is the total, not the amount killed by the US.

How many innocent lives does it take before you defend them, hypocrite
That's easy. If even one innocent person dies, and there's something I can do about it, I will defend them. However, there are evil people in the world who are willing to kill the innocent. They don't separate themselves from the innocent and sometimes use the innocent as shields. Because of this, the only way to stop them from continuing to kill the innocent is to kill them. Because they don't separate themselves from the innocent, this does require killing innocent people. However, so long as the war against the evil people saves more innocent lives than it kills, it is worth it. The First Iraq war when we saved Kuwait and the Afghanistan war against the Taliban were two such wars. There is no hypocrisy here.
You don't defend the innocent
Oh, but I do. That's why I oppose abortion and support wars like the First Iraq War and the Afghanistan War.
you defend the right of men to rule
No, I don't. I have debunked this absurd accusation several times.
Do the majority of women believe that they don't have the right to bodily autonomy?
No.
I have another question for you.
If pro-life women don't oppose women's bodily autonomy, then how is it not inconsistent for you to say that pro-life men do? Why does the logic of the situation change simply because the people in question have different chromosomes?
#306
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@bmdrocks21
Meh, slavery is pretty bad even economically speaking. It hinders innovation. Just look at the Confederacy before the Civil War. I believe they had one factory at the beginning. Slavery left them in the past. There really aren't any good aspects of it morally or economically speaking.
I know nothing about slavery in the confederacy but to me it is clear that having slaves to perform menial repetitive tasks would be immensely beneficial in terms of economics. Low-wage labour is already highly valued, which is why such tasks are outsourced to places like China. I can only imagine that no-wage labour would be even more highly valued. 

You're taking a difference of opinion to mean that nothing can be right. Apply that to politics. We disagree, but one of us is correct about any given issue.
I don't think any one answer is correct about any position in politics. There are certainly right answers with respect to what you personally value but to state that there is an objective correctness is silly.

In the same way, we can measure outcomes of certain moral value systems and determine which are better. Looking at the unrest in the Middle East, I think we can definitively say they don't have a very good way to live, morally, economically, or really any other way.
I don't think you can definitively say this for a couple of reasons

1. The most obvious reason is that the middle east has been subject to a large amount of western inference and some portion of the unrest can be attributed to that. Any conclusion you make without factoring in the impacts of such interference is not going to be accurate.

2. Evaluating a different systems moral framework with respect to your to own moral framework results in a subjective evaluation, not an objective one. For example, Saudis living in Saudi Arabia are generally happy with living in Saudi Arabia despite your misgivings about sharia law.


A seed would be sperm, the ground would be the egg in this analogy. A tiny apple just sprouting on the tree would be the fetus. And by what you said " have less value than an apple because of the level of care and time required for them to become an apple" you would be saying that children have less value that adults, morally speaking. More effort went into making them a ripe apple, after all. In this case, the tree might need more water and sunlight to produce the apple, but you are protecting the apple and adding to the bushel. Don't destroy an apple a few months before it is ripened! Just because it is a tiny, budding apple that isn't currently edible doesn't mean it is worthless and disposable. 

Your analogy really doesn't make sense to me. Plant reproduction is already analogous to animal reproduction. Why would you ignore that and make up your own analogy.


In this analogy the seed should be the zygote, the flower and the pollen that made the zygote would've been the egg and the sperm. The ground would be the uterus. The seed spouting into a sapling is the maturing of the zygote into adult hood and the producing of the apple represent reproductive maturity.


The seed won't become a sapling for many years. During this time the sapling will need to be protected from the elements and disease. The soil around it will need to have the right nutrients and pH balance. Other plants shouldn't be grown near it to steal nutrients, compete for resources or disrupt the careful ecosystem of the soil surrounding the sapling. If I let it continue to grow, I will be rewarded with a tree that provides apples, but oh no, I don't have the time or money to take care of the sapling and it will definitely die if I don't provide both and at the same time it is taking up that plot of land that I need for more productive enterprises. What should I do?



#307
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Again, don't keep going back to societal norms and societal morality.  Think about it LOGICALLY.

You have yet to respond to what I've said.  I will repeat it "If you think it should not be restricted to kill a human being inside the womb, even it has gained personhood, in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, then why can't I kill my 2 year old that has gained personhood?"

Forget about legality and society, killing my 2 year old is logically consistent with your position.  Care to defend your position?
I have responded to what you've said. I just don't think you've understood my responses.

Do you recall when I said there were instances where I think it would be ok to murder infants? The same applies here to your 2 year old. The context behind this reasoning is that there should be a sufficient reasoning to do either.

Now your contention is that this reasoning is subjective and hence you can murder either for whichever you like as long as you deem your own reasoning sufficient. This is absolutely correct assuming there is no moral constraints that you are subjected to.

Now, as it turns out, there are such constraints. Specifically, society has already dictated and upper bound what you may or may not do and what is considered wrong and correct. There is pressure to comply either in the form of social pressure, or legal pressure. Failure to comply means you will be penalized in some form by society.

Now in our society, it is absolutely prohibited to murder 2 year olds for the reasons that you gave. And hence it is wrong as judged by society.
Aborting zygotes and whatever is generally grey area for the reasons of parental health and wellbeing in society. So I'm happy to give my opinion on that matter in particular.

You saying forget about society is absolutely idiotic, because society dictates what is wrong and right.

Exactly.  This is the whole problem with your argument.  A sufficient reason is subjective and can't be sustained. 
Sure it can. Just establish an upper bound on sufficiency. We already do this with many systems in place already. Being threatened with a gun is a sufficient reason to shoot someone. Stealing your tic-tac is not.

That's why we must use concrete facts to determine what something is.  Life is inherent or its not.  You are living, or you are dead.  One is living from conception.  Philosophical subjective reasons do not work in creating laws.  You said just take the most popular idea and use it as the law.  That is bogus.  That is completely subjective, and just because something is popular does not make it right.  Concrete facts are the only way to fix this.
Our laws are based on morals. Morals are subjective. Hence it really doesn't matter if a law is based on subjectivity, because all laws are based on subjectivity. Also there really is no right or wrong answer to this particular topic. Hence it doesn't really matter if a law is objectively right as long as it is consistent. Finally I believe in majority rules. So what they decide would be right anyway.
#308
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@dustryder
It isn't no-wage labor, though. You have to pay to feed and house the slaves. That is why they used low-paid Irish to do the more dangerous jobs because it would be more expensive to lose a slave.

I mean, unless you are evil, you want to make your country a good place for everyone. Reduce poverty and such. Generally you have the same goal, you just have different opinions on how to reach that goal. Some ideas are better than others for reaching that goal.

We have interfered in the Middle East, but they were by no means stable before that. They are always doing tribalistic warring.

Or maybe many of those Saudis are too poor to leave, who knows. Many of them may not know better because they aren't exposed to different ways of thinking. The governments there control information flows to their people. Non-corrupt countries where citizens know different points of view lean towards more westernized ways of thinking because we respect personal rights. I'm not applying western morals to compare to theirs. Just from any basic philosophical standpoint, you can tell that some things they do are abhorrent.

Not mention that economic and political freedom are linked to more wealth. Any way you look at it, really, you can see that how they run things are terrible.

The ground is the uterus? The soil isn't an organism or part of an organism, so it becomes disanalogous. The woman is the tree, which grows apples. The tree makes the apples. Your analogy would apply to test-tube babies maybe.
Topic's author
#309
Our_Boat_is_Right
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 334
2
3
10
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Our_Boat_is_Right
2
3
10
-->
@disgusted
Thank you for proving my point.
Topic's author
#310
Our_Boat_is_Right
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 334
2
3
10
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Our_Boat_is_Right
2
3
10
-->
@dustryder
Your responses are irrelevant.  Maybe you should read what I said.

"If you think it should not be restricted to kill a human being inside the womb, even it has gained personhood, in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, then why can't I kill my 2 year old that has gained personhood?"

You said a person has moral value when it gains personhood.  Viability is the marker for personhood, according to you.  Therefore, when a baby becomes viable in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, it has gained moral value.  So my question is what is the difference between killing a child in the womb that has complete moral value, then killing one outside the womb?  If you think killing them inside the womb should not be restricted, then why should killing it outside the womb be restricted?
#311
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Oh apologies. The problem with my previous reply is that it assumes you've read and understood my previous responses. How silly of me to assume you've done either.

Remember, moral value is not some boolean value. There is an implicit comparison of moral value when deciding such matters. For example, the moral value of a fetus and the moral value of a woman's bodily autonomy. The weighting of the result of this comparison determines what society deems as wrong and right. My previous answer should follow 
Topic's author
#312
Our_Boat_is_Right
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 334
2
3
10
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Our_Boat_is_Right
2
3
10
-->
@dustryder
 For example, the moral value of a fetus and the moral value of a woman's bodily autonomy. 
So you believe another human being can be murdered if it changes a women's body chemistry?  Why does the right to live have less moral value than a women's health?

#313
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
You have yet to explain why breathing through the mouth determines moral significance.
Your above is a false narrative and not a statement Ive ever made.

Again, and you refuse to accept as a fact, the baby taking its first IN-spiration of breath and being disconnected from its mother via umbilical cord, is what makes the the human baby an independent human individual.

Just because the baby is getting its nutrients from the women does not mean it isn't a separate organism. 
Your above is  false and makes  obvious that your an irrational, illogical, lack of common sense nut-case.

If you refuse to accept the scientific fact that the baby is it's own life and own, unique organism, then I see no point in debating someone who is either ignorant or just intellectually dishonest.
False narrative again. The fetus/baby is not an independent human individual as long as;

1} it has not taken its first INspriation of oxygen,

2} is reciving all of its nutrients for sustating life,

3} is inside the pregnant woman and

4} connected to mother via umbilical cord attacehed to uterus/womb.

This just place rational, logical common sense facts - truths, that, you choose to igore so as to justify your sticking you friggin nose in all pregnant womens bodily bussiness on Earth.  STOP IT NOW! 

Stop your immoral, indecent virtual raping of pregnant women all over Earth NOW!

Read my lips text now and STOP IT! voluntarily or we will have to stop you.

#314
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
So you believe another human being can be murdered if it changes a women's body chemistry? 
Not really

Why does the right to live have less moral value than a women's health?
<br>
It doesn't

Topic's author
#315
Our_Boat_is_Right
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 334
2
3
10
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Our_Boat_is_Right
2
3
10
-->
@dustryder
Ok great, then why aren't you against the legality of most abortion cases?
Topic's author
#316
Our_Boat_is_Right
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 334
2
3
10
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Our_Boat_is_Right
2
3
10
-->
@ebuc
Unfortunately I see no point in debating scientific facts.  Perhaps you should research some more.  This is basic biology.  We have to accept this is a different individual that has it's unique body and life to have a discussion.  Until you accept that fact, I see no point in wasting my time.
#317
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
Many of them may not know better because they aren't exposed to different ways of thinking. The governments there control information flows to their people.
Typical conservative government behaviour.
#318
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Until you accept the FACT that you have no right to know what medical procedure any other human is undergoing you can't be involved in this discussion. What gives you the right to know what procedure anyone else is undergoing?
#319
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@ebuc
If it's virtual, it isn't rape.
#320
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
It isn't no-wage labor, though. You have to pay to feed and house the slaves. That is why they used low-paid Irish to do the more dangerous jobs because it would be more expensive to lose a slave.
You gotta love how the right defends slavery. LOL


#321
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I mean.. nothings really changed has it?

You asked me if another human being can be murdered if it changes a women's body chemistry to which the clear answer is no. However this has never been my position and is quite clearly a strawman

Amajority of abortion cases occur before viability. Hence a majority of abortion cases do not involve a human being being aborted. As a corollary, that means that this is not murder. Finally, what's at risk is not just a women's body chemistry as has been repeatedly outlined in this thread and I would say abortion is permissible for those factors. So I would definitely say that given sufficient reason all abortion at any stage is permissible

#322
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@disgusted
You gotta love how the right defends slavery. LOL
He is saying the exact opposite by pointing out that it is economically backwards. He said earlier that slavery slowed down the South's economic growth. He is attacking slavery, not defending it.


#323
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@disgusted
I don't think you read the conversation, otherwise you would see that I am absolutely against slavery while my opponent thinks it can't be objectively wrong. I was showing how slavery is economically terrible and was showing how it held back the Confederacy's economy.

Nice try, chap! ^_^
#324
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@disgusted
Typical conservative government behaviour.
Theocratic government, actually. Certainly not American conservatism.
Topic's author
#325
Our_Boat_is_Right
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 334
2
3
10
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Our_Boat_is_Right
2
3
10
-->
@disgusted

I have a right to know and to have an opinion on killing babies, and how they are tortured and dismembered when they are being killed.
Topic's author
#326
Our_Boat_is_Right
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 334
2
3
10
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Our_Boat_is_Right
2
3
10
-->
@dustryder
I am aware of that, but I am talking about 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions when the baby IS viable.  Don't change the argument.  This is what I have been discussing.

So I would definitely say that given sufficient reason all abortion at any stage is permissible
Let's take out rape, incest, and cases that can severely do damage to a women's health.  What other sufficient reasons are there that give you the right to murder another human being in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters?  What reason is possible that overcomes another human's right to live?



#327
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I am aware of that, but I am talking about 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions when the baby IS viable.  Don't change the argument.  This is what I have been discussing.
Oh pardon me. Anyone could've mistaken your meaning when you refer to "most abortion cases", which of course are before viability. But you know, I had thought you were discussing abortion from conception. So I can't really see how focusing on 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions will help.

Let's take out rape, incest, and cases that can severely do damage to a women's health.  What other sufficient reasons are there that give you the right to murder another human being in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters?  What reason is possible that overcomes another human's right to live?
I mean.. pick one



Topic's author
#328
Our_Boat_is_Right
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 334
2
3
10
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Our_Boat_is_Right
2
3
10
-->
@dustryder
The top reasons- out of convenience.  Why does that overcome a human beings right to live?

And I don't know why you are making it difficult for yourself to be against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions.  Like, it's your own logic.  We can get to the conception argument in a little bit.
#329
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I don't know what you mean. My logic simply dictates that there should be moral considerations before proceeding with an abortion on the basis of personhood, but ultimately I simply do not believe that the moral value of fetuses outweigh the moral value of womanly well-being and their bodily autonomy.
#330
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
I didn't ask you that. Try be be truthful and answer the question.
Oh you can't be truthful or you will go to hell, that's hilarious.