-->
@drafterman
If you are going to reject a fact and be that closed minded then I have no desire to discuss further.
I'm Pro Life: Change my Mind
Posts
Total:
500
-->
@dustryder
If you wish to talk about rights, fetuses do not have the same rights as babies. Whether it is moral or not is entirely irrelevant
You completely shifted the argument to legality. Legality does not matter to me. Morality does. The government does not decide what is moral and what is not. This whole argument is based around morality. You have yet to answer why an unborn baby has less moral significance than a born one. What is the difference? If you are not able to answer a question as simple as this, then you have a very weak argument.
Science cannot answer when human life starts
This is not even about a political opinion. It is simply a fact that life starts at conception. A unique life, with unique DNA, separate from anyone else in the entire world. At conception, a human organism is created. If you are not able to accept the science of this, then you are simply wrong and I will stop this conversation.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
You completely shifted the argument to legality. Legality does not matter to me. Morality does. The government does not decide what is moral and what is not. This whole argument is based around morality.
No, you shifted the argument to legality when you argued that fetuses and children have the same rights.
You have yet to answer why an unborn baby has less moral significance than a born one. What is the difference? If you are not able to answer a question as simple as this, then you have a very weak argument.
It's not been conferred person-hood. Hence it is not a human being or a human life. The logical conclusion being that we value human beings more than non human beings.
This is not even about a political opinion. It is simply a fact that life starts at conception. A unique life, with unique DNA, separate from anyone else in the entire world. At conception, a human organism is created. If you are not able to accept the science of this, then you are simply wrong and I will stop this conversation.
You are wrong. I brought evidence that you are wrong. If you are going to ignore evidence and then blather on about how you are right without providing your own evidence, you are the close-minded one and it is for that reason that this thread should end. All you're doing is misappropriating the word "science" as a bludgeon to quell any sort of counter argument, but your own argument lacks any sort of substance or basis in science.
-->
@dustryder
No, you shifted the argument to legality when you argued that fetuses and children have the same rights.
I apologize if I confused you. I never meant "rights" in the legal sense, only the moral.
It's not been conferred person-hood.
Ok, we're getting somewhere. Who decides this? What makes person-hood?
You are wrong. I brought evidence that you are wrong
All you said is life is philosophical and not scientific. How is this evidence?
If you reject that life starts at conception, then tell me, what is that unique 'thing' that has its own DNA at conception? When does life start?
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Ok, we're getting somewhere. Who decides this? What makes person-hood?
No one decides on personhood. Personhood is the all encompassing label of what a person is. For example, the relationships formed with others is a part of personhood.
All you said is life is philosophical and not scientific. How is this evidence?
I posted a link explaining the same.
How is you constantly reiterating that life starts at conception proof that life starts at conception from a scientific viewpoint? And no, further iterating that what is created at conception has unique DNA is not evidence.
If you reject that life starts at conception, then tell me, what is that unique 'thing' that has its own DNA at conception? When does life start?
That would be a homo sapiens zygote. I make no argument as to when life starts. However I reject your assertion that life must necessarily start from conception
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Your "fact" is that introducing a gun into a situation result in less lives being lost. Even if we accept this extremely dubious and debatable fact, at the end of the day, you are still deciding that some people should die.
That's not "pro-life", that's "pro-some lives over others."
-->
@drafterman
at the end of the day, you are still deciding that some people should die.
This is logically incorrect. If much more people are being saved by guns than taken, than that creates a net gain in lives. More people would die if guns were banned, so again this just does not logically follow through.
By your logic if you are not in favor of a knife or car ban than you are still deciding that some people should die, so therefore you are not pro life either.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
This is logically incorrect. If much more people are being saved by guns than taken, than that creates a net gain in lives. More people would die if guns were banned, so again this just does not logically follow through.
What doesn't follow through? The lives that are "saved" are only saved because other lives are ended. Ending lives isn't pro-life.
By your logic if you are not in favor of a knife or car ban than you are still deciding that some people should die, so therefore you are not pro life either.
Okay, I'm not pro-life. I never claimed to be.
-->
@dustryder
No one decides on personhood
Ok, when does personhood start?
That would be a homo sapiens zygote.
..which is an early form of life. Life is defined scientifically, it is not an opinion. "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization." Life- "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms." A new human organism is made at conception. Again, this is scientifically proven. You are simply uneducated if you don't know when life starts, and should not be making abortion arguments.
Let me ask this- What makes an unborn baby have less value than a born baby that you can murder it? You have yet to answer this. This is frankly all I care about.
-->
@drafterman
Saving a life with guns in most cases does not require another one to be ended. In most cases an injury to the criminal or brandishing the gun does the life-saving. Plus, even if the criminals life is ended, it was done justly and would not be murder. We are saving innocent lives, not guilty ones.
Okay, I'm not pro-life. I never claimed to be.
Then everyone is not pro-life. WTH is your point? You come into an abortion argument and claim I am not pro-life. This is about pro-life and pro-choice.
-->
@dustryder
Ok, so now public opinion doesn't matter? I'm confused, you said that I shouldn't pass my laws because they were unpopular. Now, you can't pass a law even if it is popular? So, you are now going with the principle of the bill rather than public opinion, which brings us right back to where we started. Let's not waste time with diversions. That is like the people who say "what about rape", even though they support abortion for any reason.
So, if I am a politician, then slavery becomes my business. So, if I am a male politician, abortion laws also become my business, yes?
I don't understand how you think that child-beating is a valid moral framework, but we can have that discussion another time. Let's stay on point.
Well, the father also created that fetus, yet the father never gets considered in this decision. Sure, he doesn't have to carry it, but that is also his kid. If it is any one person's right to decide, it would hypothetically be the mother. However, I don't think that any person should be given the ability to kill the child/fetus.
That fetus did absolutely nothing wrong. It didn't have any say in being born. It is human as much as anyone else(all the DNA and genetic information). It is 100% alive and growing. The only differences are age/stage of development and location. Those don't justify a killing.
-->
@dustryder
It is a human organism. It is alive. It is living.
There are 3 states of being. Inanimate, dead, and alive.
An unborn baby is not inanimate. It is not dead, otherwise it wouldn't be in human development. The only possible state is alive.
And to think 60 million babies have been murdered...just absolutely disgusting. A modern day holocaust.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Ok, when does personhood start?
As with human life, there's no hard and fast rule as to when personhood is conferred. However clearly a zygote has no characteristics of personhood and as such, a zygote is not a human being.
..which is an early form of life. Life is defined scientifically, it is not an opinion. "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization." Life- "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms." A new human organism is made at conception. Again, this is scientifically proven. You are simply uneducated if you don't know when life starts, and should not be making abortion arguments.
We can agree that a homo sapiens zygote is life. We can agree that human development begins after conception. Nothing you've said has shown that a homo sapiens zygote is equivalent to human life. If you are unable to understand this concept, you are free to drop out at anytime because clearly this goes way over your head.
Let me ask this- What makes an unborn baby have less value than a born baby that you can murder it? You have yet to answer this. This is frankly all I care about.
Murdering babies is morally wrong. Aborting zygotes is not morally wrong. It is not morally wrong because they have less moral value than the mother does. This is because a zygote is not a human being while the mother definitively is.
-->
@dustryder
Ok, so your whole post is centered around your opinion that a zygote is not a human life. You conceded a zygote is a life. So the only part left is the "human." Human describes the species of which the unborn baby is. It is of the human species. Therefore it is a human life. If it is not "human," then what species is it?
-->
@bmdrocks21
Ok, so now public opinion doesn't matter? I'm confused, you said that I shouldn't pass my laws because they were unpopular. Now, you can't pass a law even if it is popular? So, you are now going with the principle of the bill rather than public opinion, which brings us right back to where we started. Let's not waste time with diversions. That is like the people who say "what about rape", even though they support abortion for any reason.
Public opinion does not matter in the context of my personal opinion which is what you asked of me. If you were to ask me should third trimester abortions be banned based upon majority support, I would've said yes.
So, if I am a politician, then slavery becomes my business. So, if I am a male politician, abortion laws also become my business, yes?
Yes. If you're representing only woman.
I don't understand how you think that child-beating is a valid moral framework, but we can have that discussion another time. Let's stay on point.
I don't think it's a valid moral framework. You're the one that brought it up as a hypothetical to challenge the consistency of my beliefs
That fetus did absolutely nothing wrong. It didn't have any say in being born. It is human as much as anyone else(all the DNA and genetic information). It is 100% alive and growing. The only differences are age/stage of development and location. Those don't justify a killing.
It is not as human as anyone else. Any living person alive is more human than any zygote. It is for that reason that the answer to save 100 embryos or the single child is invariably the child.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Actually my whole post is centered around the concept that a zygote is not a human being.Ok, so your whole post is centered around your opinion that a zygote is not a human life. You conceded a zygote is a life. So the only part left is the "human." Human describes the species of which the unborn baby is. It is of the human species. Therefore it is a human life. If it is not "human," then what species is it?
A zygote is a member of the homo sapiens species. "Human" is a word that relates to characteristics of human beings. A zygote does not have the characteristics of human beings and is therefore not of human life.
-->
@dustryder
A zygote is a member of the homo sapiens species.
"the species to which all modern human beings belong" that would be the human species my guy
A zygote does not have the characteristics of human beings and is therefore not of human life.
What are the characteristics of human beings?
The point here is that even if you don't consider it a human being, if left in the natural course of things, it will grow and develop into a fully formed human. This has much more value than a women's convenience.
-->
@dustryder
When is a living human considered alive?
The slippery slope here is we are assigning different moral values for different stages of life. The bottom line is- it's either living or it's not. An unborn baby has inherent value. People have inherent value. If we assign moral values to different people, then we get caught up in things like babies who are 3 months old, disabled people in wheelchairs, and elderly people in nursing homes who we could say don't have as much moral value as an adult. Using this notion, this means nobody has inherent value, and thus the moral values of humans are compared to one another, and ultimately used as an argument for why we can murder people because they have less moral value than someone else.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
All human beings are homo sapiens. Not all homo sapiens are human beings. I think that's the nuance you are missing"the species to which all modern human beings belong" that would be the human species my guy
What are the characteristics of human beings?
Personhood
The point here is that even if you don't consider it a human being, if left in the natural course of things, it will grow and develop into a fully formed human. This has much more value than a women's convenience.
In that case I disagree. What a future person might be does not trump what is a person is now and will be in the future. The fact remains a non-person does not have the moral value of a person.
When is a living human considered alive?The slippery slope here is we are assigning different moral values for different stages of life. The bottom line is- it's either living or it's not. An unborn baby has inherent value. People have inherent value. If we assign moral values to different people, then we get caught up in things like babies who are 3 months old, disabled people in wheelchairs, and elderly people in nursing homes who we could say don't have as much moral value as an adult. Using this notion, this means nobody has inherent value, and thus the moral values of humans are compared to one another, and ultimately used as an argument for why we can murder people because they have less moral value than someone else.
There is no slippery slope. It's not that we are assigning different moral values to different people/stages of life. It's that different people inherently have different moral values, however you just wish to willfully ignore that fact.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
more value than a women's convenience.
What you mean to say is "a woman's rights", after all second class people don't deserve equal rights. The abortion question only concerns this.
It matters not what you call the growth it only matters that the woman has the right to remove that growth if she so wishes.
-->
@dustryder
Personhood
So your argument seems to be a baby must obtain personhood to become morally valid. What is personhood?
-->
@disgusted
What you mean to say is "a woman's rights",
The baby's life is more valuable than a women's convenience.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
The question of abortion doesn't even concern babies, it only concerns a right to bodily autonomy. Do you reject everyone's right to bodily autonomy or just a woman's right?
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
So your argument seems to be a baby must obtain personhood to become morally valid. What is personhood?
Ok, we're getting somewhere. Who decides this? What makes person-hood?No one decides on personhood. Personhood is the all encompassing label of what a person is. For example, the relationships formed with others is a part of personhood.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Pro life means just that, pro “life.” If you’re going to start deciding which lives stay and which go and decide that some kinds of killings are “just,” then you aren’t pro life.
And that’s what this thread is about. You said you’re pro life and you asked people to change your mind. I’m showing you really don’t care about life in general, just specific kinds of lives.
-->
@dustryder
Ok, so you think there should be laws banning third-trimester abortions, even though you disagree with them? I don't feel like this is an important point, so unless I misrepresented you there, we can just drop it.
"Only representing women". You said it would be the business of a politician to end slavery. That politician wouldn't be only representing slaves. Furthermore, the slaves wouldn't have been able to vote for him, so he wouldn't be representing them at all. So, no, abortion would be that politician's business regardless of who they are representing.
You are saying that we cannot call a child-beating culture wrong within their framework or whatever. That means you believe no moral systems are invalid. If it isn't an invalid framework, it is therefore a valid one.
How is the "living person" more alive than a zygote? By every biological measure, they are both equally human and both alive. One is just at a less-risky form of development.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Do you reject everyone's right to bodily autonomy or just a woman's right?
-->
@disgusted
I reject the right of everyone to kill defenseless, innocent humans.
-->
@bmdrocks21
"Only representing women". You said it would be the business of a politician to end slavery. That politician wouldn't be only representing slaves. Furthermore, the slaves wouldn't have been able to vote for him, so he wouldn't be representing them at all. So, no, abortion would be that politician's business regardless of who they are representing.
A politician represents the interests of who he is representing. If he does not represent the people who have any business in abortion, he himself has no business in abortion. One is not required to be a slave to be involved in slavery.
You are saying that we cannot call a child-beating culture wrong within their framework or whatever. That means you believe no moral systems are invalid. If it isn't an invalid framework, it is therefore a valid one.
For the purposes of your hypotheticals I assumed such societies to exist in order to apply your moral framework. If you're asking me personally whether a moral framework based around child beating is valid or not, of course I'm going to say it's invalid if it has no society in which it is attached to.
How is the "living person" more alive than a zygote? By every biological measure, they are both equally human and both alive. One is just at a less-risky form of development.
As per personhood, they are not equally human