I'm Pro Life: Change my Mind

Why not?

I have no idea why

But this concept of lesser moral value is meaningless. You are asserting this solely based on popular opinion. I'm sure a majority of Muslims have certain opinions on women that you would find repugnant. The majority of them think that is the right perception, but that certainly doesn't make it true.

I don't see how it isn't my business. If some moral injustice is occurring, you can't argue that it isn't my business to correct it. It was the business of Abraham Lincoln that slavery was occurring. For a more modern example, would you say that white people cannot protest an instance of police brutality against a minority? Is their opinion meaningless because it isn't their business? Or is it the business of every decent citizen to fight injustice?

Society doesn't dictate whether something is correct or not. They dictate what they perceive as correct. That means they can be wrong. I don't understand where this distinction is coming from. Are you saying that the difference between disrespect and correctness is whether or not it is legal? 

And the state gets to determine personhood? That worked out so well in Nazi Germany....

Being named is not an argument for morality.  Many parents do name their children in the early stages, however that takes time and thought in most cases, and this is honestly irrelevant to morality.  We don't hold funerals for zygotes because they never had a life in the first place.  When one is aborted, it is usually private and their would be nothing to hold a funeral for.  Again this is extremely weak evidence, it is not actually evidence for why unborn babies are less than adults.  The fundamental difference is the stage of life and time.

Then it is awfully disgusting to give less moral value to babies than adults when you admit you don't have any evidence for it.

And btw, I'm not telling the women what to do with her body.  I'm arguing for the child's body, the child's life.  It is separate from the women's.  Just because I am not a women does not mean I can't make moral judgements as to whether you can murder a child.

You yourself have that instinct because you immediately decided that the zygote did not have a life, despite your claim that life begins from conception. 

The common question to save the child or the 5000 embryos is a perfect example of this.  

 the point is that the embryo is a life, and one's life has much more value than a women's choice to kill it out of convenience.

However in terms of deciding actual policy, majority should rule in a democracy.

Yes I can. It's quite simple. If it involves you, it is your business. If it doesn't involve you, it is not your business. You can certainly insert yourself into a cause in support, but it still wouldn't be any of your business

so whatever society decides is correct is not is correct.

The mother decides on personhood.

 The state facilitates her wishes.

restrictive abortions would be the state determining personhood.

Zygotes never having a life in the first place is the exact reason why they have less moral value to adults.

Not at all. I do not give or take moral value. It is what it is on instinct. You yourself have that instinct because you immediately decided that the zygote did not have a life, despite your claim that life begins from conception. The common question to save the child or the 5000 embryos is a perfect example of this.  

The two in inseparable. If you are arguing to save the fetus, you are simultaneously ****ing the woman carry the fetus.

And don't think I haven't noticed you've used "child" again. Either prove that a fetus is a child or you can stop with the manipulative bull****.

Why does a less valuable organism deserve life at the cost of a critically life alterating, damaging and painful event for a more valuable organism?

Why does a less valuable organism deserve life at the cost of a critically life alterating, damaging and painful event for a more valuable organism?

So if the majority decided to commit genocide against the minority, that would be fine? If not, then why is it ok for the majority to dictate morality regarding abortion but not genocide?

So if a criminal breaks into my neighbor's house, shoots him so he is lying helpless on the floor, and rapes his wife in front of him, that isn't any of my business because it doesn't involve me, so I should just let it happen? If people going around killing each other, we shouldn't outlaw murder because we're not involved?

If society decides that all Jews need to die, then. . . what?

Why does the mother get to decide personhood for unborn children, but not for born children?

How is the state deciding that abortions should be legal up to X point in the pregnancy equivalent to the mother deciding?

The Germans wanted the Jews to die to control undesirable populations. The state facilitated their wishes.

Does the state determine personhood when it bans the murder of born humans? If so, why is that only okay when the human is already born?

Either they have life, or they are dead, or they were never alive to begin with, meaning they're not made of cells. The cells are functioning, so they are alive. It really is that simple. If you disagree, then I would be extremely curious to hear how cells that aren't alive can multiply in numbers.

It is also people's natural instinct to save their own child rather than 100 strangers. Does that mean the strangers are less valuable?

That's only true if the woman's life is in danger. In that case, when there is a choice between killing one to save the other or letting both die, I don't know and have never heard of anyone who would choose to let both die. This is a strawman.

Don't think I haven't noticed you've used "fetus" again. Either prove that a child is a fetus or you can stop with the manipulative nonsense.

Why is it okay when you use language slanted to your side and not when Our_Boat uses language that slants to his side?

Now, I want to be absolutely clear that I am not accusing you of being like Nazis. However, the logic that morality is determined by society inevitably leads to the inability to condemn any crime, no matter how horrific, so long as it is condoned by society.

Also, the idea that it isn't any of my business if I'm a man is complete nonsense. If unborn babies are people, then abortion is murder and must be stopped; if not, it isn't. The question that matters is whether or not the unborn are people, not what my genitals are.

1) You have yet to prove why it is less valuable and ignored all my rebuttals, and

2) The majority of cases it is not critically life altering.  Just because life may be hard does not mean you get to kill a human life.

Of course it would be fine. That is what a democracy is. It's their society. They get to do with it as they please.

I won't bother replying to the rest of what you said because it would be a waste of time. If you think genocide is okay if the majority says so, then we have no common ground. As such, it would be impossible for either of us to persuade the other, so it would be a waste of time.

Ok, and the majority of people oppose third-trimester abortions. Do you support banning that? Even considering all of your 'women's autonomy' arguments?

So then what is your point on making the distinction between what is and isn't my business? Since it would be good for me to make a law against slavery, despite it not being my business, why should it matter whose business it is?

No moral correctness? So child-beating psychos are equally right in what they do as Mother Theresa? Got it. They both think they are right, after all...

So now you shift the right to determine personhood to the mother. So, whether or not the child is wanted gives them value? How is that a valid social framework? Something as frivilous and subjective as that determining who can be killed.

I'm not sure it has a proof because it is so obviously self-evidently true. 

Why?

You have yet to prove why.  You have given no evidence.  Saying that it is true without any proof is typically not how you construct an argument.  I gave rebuttals, you did not respond.

Human life is more valuable than if a women's life is hard. You don't get to murder another human being. You have no right to impose your will onto another human being and kill them.  That is murder.

If your position is you can murder a baby if life may be hard for the women, then we have nothing more to discuss.  I just think that is very sick and despicable, and morally wrong.

That's rather the point of something that is self-evidently true. Imagine if I were to state that 1 + 1 = 2 and you were to badger me for proof that 1 + 1 = 2.

Oh in that case a fetus is not a human being or a human life

It's rather foolish you would lie to yourself.  It is highly contested for debate whether an unborn baby has the same rights as a born baby.  You acting like it is an incontestable fact is foolish.

Human life scientifically starts at conception.  That is just factually incorrect.

Abortion of a fetus does not carry the same penalties as murder of a baby. QED they do not have the same rights.

The start of human life is a philosophical question not a scientific question. 

Just because something is legal does not make it moral.  Slavery was legal, was it moral?  The 2 are disconnected.  I guess black people do not have the same rights as white people since slavery was legal, following your logic.

Umm, no, human life starts at conception.  A fact is not philosophical.  

Guns have statistically been used to save far more lives than they take.  This is because of self-defense and DGU's.  You just don't have an argument right now, it doesn't seem you came very prepared.