-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Absolute right wing government. You have a failed knowledge of the world.
I'm Pro Life: Change my Mind
Posts
Total:
500
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
You have absolutely no right to know what medical procedure any person, other than you, is undergoing.
Tell me what it is that makes you think you have such a right.
-->
@SirAnonymous
No he's not.
-->
@disgusted
What are you even talking about?Oh you can't be truthful or you will go to hell, that's hilarious
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
You have absolutely no right to know what medical procedure any person, other than you, is undergoing.
Tell me what it is that makes you think you have such a right.
-->
@disgusted
Abortion isn't any secret. It is a major political topic, so of course people are going to know what the medical procedure is. This is a matter of killing innocent babies, not a "medical procedure."
Again, you are using a dumb argument. If you don't like my position on abortion then argue against, but simply saying you shouldn't know how babies are being killed is a dumb argument that is distracting from the topic at hand. All I hear is feelings, feelings, feelings.
-->
@dustryder
So you believe a small human being is worth a lot less than a mid-age human being that a women can kill a baby out of convenience? They are both human beings, why are you discriminating against the smallest ones?
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Abortion isn't any secret. It is a major political topic, so of course people are going to know what the medical procedure is
Why? What right do you have to interfere in a woman's medical procedure?
You continually skip that part. You have no right to know about the medical procedures being undergone by anyone.
Put your nose back where it belongs.
Others medical procedures are none of your business, just fuck off.
If you don't like my position on abortion then argue against, but simply saying you shouldn't know how babies are being killed
Once again you deliberately avoid the real subject and concoct lies to suit your agenda. What gives you the right to know that a man is having a tumor removed and why do you have a say in whether or not that procedure can go ahead?
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
So you believe a small human being is worth a lot less than a mid-age human being that a women can kill a baby out of convenience?
You've minimized the impact to the women by using the word "convenience" and you've maximized the moral considerations by using the words "baby" and "small human being". My position has not changed and unless you actually frame my position as it has been stated instead of dishonestly like this, we won't be getting anywhere.
They are both human beings, why are you discriminating against the smallest ones?
Again, my position has not changed and this question is covered by the previous post. If you keep asking for the same thing, you won't be getting a different reply
-->
@disgusted
Once again, until you can accept the fact that scientifically this is not a tumor, this a life, I will not engage with you.
-->
@dustryder
You yourself were the one who said human life starts when person-hood starts, when a baby is viable. So therefore, babies in the 2nd and 3rd trimester are human beings. Literally the top example of the list you gave me said the women "was not ready for a baby." Yeah, that's convenience. Why do you get to kill another human being because you don't want it? Using your logic, I can kill my 2 year old because I don't want it. They are both human beings, one is inside the womb, one is outside. What's the difference?
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Literally the top example of the list you gave me said the women "was not ready for a baby." Yeah, that's convenience.
I personally don't describe critically life altering events or restrictions to my personal freedom as convenience. Like, for example if I got cancer, I wouldn't say getting cancer was inconvenient.
Why do you get to kill another human being because you don't want it? Using your logic, I can kill my 2 year old because I don't want it. They are both human beings, one is inside the womb, one is outside. What's the difference?
???
One is inside the womb. One is outside. That's the difference
-->
@dustryder
And? Why does it matter? Why can I murder a human being inside the womb, but not outside? Personal freedom is not more morally valuable than a human being. If that is your position, I have nothing else to say. I would just pray that you change your heart to be against murder of innocent children.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I'm confused. You're aware that being inside of a womb means being inside of a woman. You're aware that carrying a fetus entails significant impact to the woman. Yet you're still asking such a moronic questionAnd? Why does it matter? Why can I murder a human being inside the womb, but not outside?
Personal freedom is not more morally valuable than a human being. If that is your position, I have nothing else to say.
Personal freedom + the impact of a critically life altering event. I really dislike how you only take one part of what I've said, and then frame it as if it's all I've said. You did the same thing with bodily chemicals changes before. It's incredibly dishonest.
I would just pray that you change your heart to be against murder of innocent children.
Personally I just pray that you gain some intellectual integrity. I haven't repeated so much shit and been so strawmanned ever apart from one particular gun nut that inhabits these forums.
And again fetus =/= children. The etymological background of a word is not equivalent to the common parlance or dictionary definition of a word.
-->
@dustryder
A critically life altering event is extremely rare. Pro-choicers use this argument as representative of the whole abortion argument, when in fact is a very minute percentage of cases. I will repeat,
"Personal freedom is not more morally valuable than a human being."
Literally the overwhelming majority it is not a threat to the women's life or a "critically life altering event." So answer the question at hand and please explain why, in a normal abortion case, a human being can be murdered.
-->
@dustryder
Personally I just pray that you gain some intellectual integrity. I haven't repeated so much shit and been so strawmanned ever apart from one particular gun nut that inhabits these forums.
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
A critically life altering event is extremely rare. Pro-choicers use this argument as representative of the whole abortion argument, when in fact is a very minute percentage of cases. I will repeat,"Personal freedom is not more morally valuable than a human being."Literally the overwhelming majority it is not a threat to the women's life or a "critically life altering event." So answer the question at hand and please explain why, in a normal abortion case, a human being can be murdered.
Pregnancy is a critically life altering event
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.
What a stupid thing to say when I've been criticising you the entire thread for doing just this.
-->
@dustryder
Pregnancy is a critically life altering event
Oh BS. A women being pregnant does not triumph murdering another human being. Most cases it doesn't pose a serious health risk. It may change some things in a women. Maybe you can't do certain things for 9 months. Boo hoo. You don't get the right to murder a human being because of this.
What a stupid thing to say when I've been criticising you the entire thread for doing just this.
Give me one example of when I have insulted you.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Oh BS. A women being pregnant does not triumph murdering another human being. Most cases it doesn't pose a serious health risk. It may change some things in a women. Maybe you can't do certain things for 9 months. Boo hoo. You don't get the right to murder a human being because of this.
You didn't really address the point there
Is pregnancy a critically life altering event? If not, why not?
Give me one example of when I have insulted you.
? I didn't say that you had
-->
@dustryder
Pregnancy is not a critically life altering event. There is nothing life-altering about it. The BOP is on you to prove that it is- not on me to prove something that is essentially non-existent. You can't prove it if it's not there. Having a baby can be a critically life altering event, but that comes with motherhood and raising a child. You don't have to keep the child if you don't want. There is no excuse for killing another human being, unless the women's health is in serious danger.
-->
@dustryder
Please explain a "critically life altering event," and explain why those reasons give you a right to murder another human being.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
It's a dictionary definition and is something you can certainly disprove by opening one. I'm aware that you have a particular disdain for dictionaries and definitions, judging by your conflation of fetuses with children but I would certainly recommend you giving it a go regardless
-->
@dustryder
Ah yes, keep dodging the question. Doesn't help when you keep going back to insults as your argument when it logically crumbles.
A critically life altering event doesn't have to be bad. It can be either. Again, explain why these reasons give you a right to murder another human being.
What right do "prolife" people have to be aware of any persons appendectomy?
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I think the point is pertinent. The phrase is a dictionary definition. You have shown an utter disdain of dictionary definitions when it suits your purposes. So why bother when it's clear that you'll ignore me and run off with your imagination anyway.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Someone prove to me why a human being, an objective life, should be killed.
No strong opinion here; my intuition is pro-choice generally, though, so thought I’d give this a shot.
I should start off by saying that the above sentence is a strawman. People who are pro-choice do not argue that fetuses ought to be killed. They simply argue that people who’re pregnant should have the right to kill them or have them killed if they so desire.
The fact that the fetus is a life does not mean it is entitled to rights; we often deny rights to living organisms, e.g., plants. If we give something a right to life, it must meet one of two criteria, at minimum. Either it must have a preference against dying or its death must cause negative externalities (i.e., harm to non consenting third parties). Why? Because the right to life is completely arbitrary when it comes to entirely unconscious beings.
In the context of abortion, neither of these criteria is met. Until at least 24 weeks, the fetus has no preferences or feelings; it is an unconscious entity. Furthermore, the death of a fetus rarely causes negative externalities large enough to outweigh the benefit to the person who gets the abortion. In addition, in reality, our standards to grant individuals the right to life is even higher. Animals can feel conscious states and have a preference against dying. Nonetheless, we do not prohibit killing animals. In many instances, we even allow torturing them or killing them for sport. The fetus is clearly less morally significant than most nonhuman animals, seeing as it does not experience conscious states for at least the first 5.5 months of pregnancy.
You might respond to this by suggesting that the fetus has the potential to be conscious and therefore is entitled to rights. However, that argument proves too much, because it would also entail that (1) everyone has an obligation to have children and (2) even sperm and eggs are entitled to rights, since they have the potential to become a life.
-->
@dustryder
Do you always avoid the question when your position logically crumbles? Don't fall into one of those leftists, please.
I haven't found a single dictionary definition for "critically life-altering event." Can you give me one and site it please?
Again, explain why these reasons give you the right to murder another human being.
-->
@disgusted
Distinction. An appendectomy does not involve the killing of an unborn baby.
-->
@Tejretics
I appreciate the civil response :)
People who are pro-choice do not argue that fetuses ought to be killed. They simply argue that people who’re pregnant should have the right to kill them or have them killed if they so desire.
Sure, I would agree on that.
we often deny rights to living organisms, e.g., plants.
I generally make a distinction between plants and the human species.
Either it must have a preference against dying or its death
Can you go more in depth on why this determines whether a fetus has the right to live?
or its death must cause negative externalities
A little confused on this...are you meaning emotional harm/grief for people associated with the person who died?
Until at least 24 weeks, the fetus has no preferences or feelings;
So just to be clear, would this imply you are against abortion after 24 weeks? Also, do newborn babies prefer not to be killed? How do you know?
Animals can feel conscious states and have a preference against dying. Nonetheless, we do not prohibit killing animals. In many instances, we even allow torturing them or killing them for sport. The fetus is clearly less morally significant than most nonhuman animals, seeing as it does not experience conscious states for at least the first 5.5 months of pregnancy.
I urge we stay away from animal rights, as that is a whole other topic. I would contend humans are intrinsically more valuable than animals. But I hope we don't conflate humans and animals in this argument.
You might respond to this by suggesting that the fetus has the potential to be conscious and therefore is entitled to rights. However, that argument proves too much, because it would also entail that (1) everyone has an obligation to have children
How would this entail everyone has an obligation to have children?
(2) even sperm and eggs are entitled to rights, since they have the potential to become a life.
False. The difference is that sperm and egg are not lives. They can potentially make up a life when combined, but when by themselves they are not. In addition, you say
potential to be conscious
Consciousness is not the same as life. You did not say the potential to become life. In fact, you already said
The fact that the fetus is a life
This means that we are in agreement the fetus is already a life, not a potential life.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
You understand that a phrase is made up of individual words that may be found in the dictionary, which when combined may add up to a definition for a phrase as a whole?