-->
@dustryder
Just to be clear, you believe in infanticide because their lives are not viable and they can't survive on their own?
I'm Pro Life: Change my Mind
Posts
Total:
500
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I don't believe in infanticide, just as I don't believe in murder. That said, there are instances where infanticide is acceptable just as there are instances where murder is acceptable. For example, one acceptable example to me would be euthenasia in an example where the baby both is terminal and will be in tremendous pain for the entire duration that it will be alive. Now obviously there are still massive moral considerations, however I firmly believe that the parents who need to make such calls should not be condemned and instead be pitied.
Now if your question to me is should parents be able to kill their babies if they no longer want their babies, then my answer is obviously not. And I would hope that were obvious from my previous response when I mentioned narrowing conditions and higher moral considerations.
Finally, in the example of a non-viable baby and they can't survive on their on, without the balancing consideration of agonizing pain I would say no, because there is the matter of dignity of life which should apply to all human beings
-->
@dustryder
because there is the matter of dignity of life which should apply to all human beings
And there it is. So then what is the difference when you say you are ok with murdering children 2 minutes before they are born, but that they suddenly get "the dignity of life" when they are born? What magically happens to make the newborn baby have dignity of life, but didn't have just 15 seconds ago still in the mother?
<br>
-->
@dustryder
I have seen people use <br>. What does that mean?
So, since some women are against abortion(consider themselves Pro-Life), in fact a majority of them according to this link SirAnonymous provided, then without a doubt, we should be more stringent in our regulations. But, you still hold this opinion that they shouldn't be like that because you think it is bad for women. And to the doctors, their literal business is abortion. :P
It kind of does invalidate their framework. If you are committing serious civil rights abuses, it doesn't matter if you think you are correct. You are wrong for doing that.
Personhood is a subjective concept that I am ignoring because it is subjective and not based on any sort of fact. Biology is based on facts, and you are using the "personhood" argument out of sheer convenience to ignore the fact that you are advocating for killing unborn children.
-->
@bmdrocks21
nobody types <br>, it is a glitch with the text coding that DART needs to fix. I'll contact Mike. Nice argument btw :)
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Thanks, you too. I have caught a few comments of yours :P
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I have never said it was ok to off a fetus 2 minutes before it is born, nor have I ever said that fetuses 15 seconds before in the mother do not have the dignity of life. In fact, I have explicitly said there are moral considerations after fetal viability. Again, is this imaginary rubbish malice or stupidity?
-->
@dustryder
Again, is this imaginary rubbish malice or stupidity?
None of the above. It was you making confusing statements.
Answer these questions- Is it ok to abort a 1st trimester baby?-Is it ok to abort a 2nd trimester baby?-is it ok to abort a 3rd trimester baby?-is it ok to kill a born baby?Yes to all of these. There are invariably going to be conditions where doing all of these is ok. Of course, such conditions become ever narrower and the moral considerations become ever higher.
-->
@disgusted
What say do you have when she is removing a tumor and how to you determine the difference?
I know the difference between the tumor and the unborn because of this:
They have their own unique DNA that has already determined their hair color, eye color, bone density, fingerprints, etc. They are separate from the mother's blood system.
Tumors have none of those characteristics.
I know the difference between when she is removing an unborn child and when she is removing a tumor because of this:
Different procedures have different names, and people have to tell the doctors what procedure they're there for. No invasion necessary.
Oh that's right you have a greater right to a woman's bodily autonomy than she does.
I refuted that here:
People like you are one of the biggest reasons Trump was elected (Disclaimer: I don't support Trump). You disagree about abortion? You think women are second-class citizens who don't deserve the same rights as men! You want immigration to be legal? You're a racist! You don't think men can become women? You're a bigot! (I'm speaking in generalizations. I'm not saying that you believe any of these things, except the one about about abortion because you said that yourself, though in different words.)The point is that many people are sick and tired of self-righteous liberals who condemn everyone who disagrees as a bad person, rather than just a person with bad ideas. Pro-life people don't oppose women's bodily autonomy; they believe that the unborn is a different body entirely. Now, you can say, "That's nonsense! Fetuses are part of the woman's body!" or "It's in the woman's body, so it's her choice." Consequently, people who oppose abortion oppose bodily autonomy. However, that would only be true if they agreed with you on those things. Let me use an analogy to show what I mean.Suppose there was this guy who said the earth was flat, and someone accused him of lying. The flat-earther replied, "I'm not lying. I really believe the earth is flat." Even though he would be wrong, that would not make him a liar; he's just ignorant and misguided. If we pro-lifers are wrong, the same is true of us. We don't oppose bodily autonomy; we just mistakenly think that the unborn is a different body (assuming we're wrong for the sake of argument).Of course, you can refuse to accept this and desperately cling to your belief that those who disagree with you must somehow be sexist and hateful and oppose bodily autonomy. If so I have a simple question for you: according to gallup, 51% of women consider themselves to be pro-life.Do they oppose their own bodily autonomy and consider themselves to be second-class citizens? If not, then how can you logically maintain that men who oppose abortion do think those things? If you do think that pro-life women don't think they're second-class citizens but pro-life men do, then why does the difference in their chromosomes and genitals change the logic of the situation?
The very idea that you know what I believe and I don't is beyond ridiculous.
Now answer my question: Do the majority of women believe that they don't have the right to bodily autonomy?
-->
@dustryder
You said you are ok with 3rd trimester abortions.
Both fetus's and infants do not have viable lies in which they can survive on their own, same w/ elderly people in assisted living. Should we kill them too?
-->
@bmdrocks21
So, since some women are against abortion(consider themselves Pro-Life), in fact a majority of them according to this link SirAnonymous provided, then without a doubt, we should be more stringent in our regulations. But, you still hold this opinion that they shouldn't be like that because you think it is bad for women. And to the doctors, their literal business is abortion. :P
Absolutely. I believe majority should rule. And let's be clear here, restrictive abortions are without a doubt bad for women. It's just you value something more than the negative impacts on the woman. Finally the business of doctors is administering abortions, not whether they should be performed from a moral perspective.
It kind of does invalidate their framework. If you are committing serious civil rights abuses, it doesn't matter if you think you are correct. You are wrong for doing that.
It's only a civil rights in the context of your subjective moral framework. There is no objective moral framework from which you could call such behaviour civil rights abuse.
Personhood is a subjective concept that I am ignoring because it is subjective and not based on any sort of fact. Biology is based on facts, and you are using the "personhood" argument out of sheer convenience to ignore the fact that you are advocating for killing unborn children.
I am using the personhood argument because it is a philosophical answer to a philosophical question. Biology is not sufficient to determine questions such as when is a homo sapien a human being.
-->
@SirAnonymous
The correct response to confusion is to ask clarifying questions, not make shit up and strawman me
-->
@dustryder
Fair, but you can't really accuse people of malice or stupidity for misunderstanding a confusing comment.The correct response to confusion is to ask clarifying questions, not make **** up and strawman me
-->
@dustryder
You said you draw the line at viability. Are you going to answer my questions?
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
What part of "moral considerations become ever higher" did you not understand? Or did you miss that part in your haste to cherry pick me.
We aren't "killing" them because they aren't viable, we are "killing" them because they aren't viable and are a threat to the women carrying them
-->
@SirAnonymous
I have no patience for willful and unrepentant dishonesty. And given that was the third example in his communications towards me that I remember despite me calling out such behaviour previously, either it's malice or stupidity.
-->
@dustryder
Ok, so now you are changing from "not viable" to "not viable and a threat to the women"
A couple questions--
1) Why does viability determine moral value?
2) What if the unborn baby is not a threat to the women?
-->
@dustryder
I have no patience for willful and unrepentant dishonesty. And given that was the third example in his communications towards me that I remember despite me calling out such behaviour previously, either it's malice or stupidity
No, you made a confusing statement that was easy to misunderstand. It isn't anything to be ashamed of, but you shouldn't accuse people of dishonesty when they don't understand statements that are easily misunderstood.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
There was no change. There is no reason for abortions if there was no threat to women. We are able to justify them because they have less moral value by virtue of being unviable and not a human being. Both are necessary components to the morality of abortions.
1. Because from my point of view, that is the point where a fetus gains some sort of an individuality. That is, the point where the fetus need no longer be attached to the female to live autonomously even if the moment is brief.
2. Then I have no problem in the slightest with the baby. It does however depend on what you think I meant by threat.
-->
@SirAnonymous
My statement wasn't confusing in the slightest. He read it and extrapolated what he thought suited him. That is dishonesty. Or stupidity. Or both. Once is ignorance. Twice after warning him is willful
-->
@dustryder
That is, the point where the fetus need no longer be attached to the female to live autonomously even if the moment is brief.
Logically following, then you do support killing the child right before it's born. You are being logically inconsistent. If viability is the issue, infants and elderly people are not viable because they can not survive on their own. Why does it matter if its connected to the women? It is its own life, not the women's. Whether infants live a little bit longer is irrelevant. When left to their own means, the fetus and infant and elderly all die.
Plus, fetus's can be "viable" outside the womb at 22 weeks. Logically following your "viability" argument, this means you are against 3rd trimester abortions.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Logically following, then you do support killing the child right before it's born. You are being logically inconsistent.
I don't understand your reasoning here
If viability is the issue, infants and elderly people are not viable because they can not survive on their own. Why does it matter if its connected to the women? It is its own life, not the women's. Whether infants live a little bit longer is irrelevant. When left to their own means, the fetus and infant and elderly all die.
Viability isn't the issue. Personhood is the issue, with viability being a marker for personhood.
Why did you ask me the previous questions if you were going to ignore the responses and give me a canned answer that makes no sense in the context of my responses?
The issue with the fetus being attached to the woman, is that the fetus is literally attached to the woman. This entails all sorts of consequences for the woman.
And to be clear, you are ok with a women choosing this?
Of course not. A woman should have safe options to deal with her late term pregnancy instead of a 3rd rate hack and the fetuses should've been sent to a premature ward but unfortunately this is the sad result of desperation and lack of access
-->
@dustryder
Before, you said you are not in support of aborting a baby right before birth. But then you state "That is, the point where the fetus need no longer be attached to the female to live autonomously even if the moment is brief." is what gives the baby moral value. Before birth, the baby is attached to the women. So logically following, you are ok with babies being aborted up until birth.
Viability isn't the issue. Personhood is the issue, with viability being a marker for personhood.
Yes, so viability is the issue lol. You just restated your position. Viability gives a human moral value, correct?
The issue with the fetus being attached to the woman, is that the fetus is literally attached to the woman. This entails all sorts of consequences for the woman.
How so? Why doesn't she give birth to save the babies life, and set it up for adoption if she truly can not take care of it?
And again, infants are not viable life. They can not survive on their own. Neither can elderly people on assisted living. Are you ok with killing them as well as infants?
And to be clear, I am talking about aborted babies. Here is a picture without the blood(less graphic) of an aborted baby. Literally what they do an in abortion, this is not feelings, just straight facts, is they take a tool and grasp the babies limbs, one by one, and pull them off. The baby can feel pain. They crush the skull and the brains of the baby are sucked out, and then they remove all the skull pieces. Let me ask you, as compassionately as possible, truly, in your heart, are you ok with that? Does a women have a right to kill that baby?
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Before, you said you are not in support of aborting a baby right before birth. But then you state "That is, the point where the fetus need no longer be attached to the female to live autonomously even if the moment is brief." is what gives the baby moral value. Before birth, the baby is attached to the women. So logically following, you are ok with babies being aborted up until birth.
Oh I see what you're trying to say now. I've bolded the bit you've seemingly misunderstood to come to this conclusion. It's not about the existence of an "attachment" of the fetus to the mother. It's about the requirement of there being an attachment of the fetus to the mother. That said it's a very odd interpretation of my words
Yes, so viability is the issue lol. You just restated your position. Viability gives a human moral value, correct?
My position hasn't really changed. Viability is the marker for personhood. Personhood is what gives moral value. Hence your previous answers don't make sense to me because they are discussing infants and elderly people which have already received personhood and hence moral value.
How so? Why doesn't she give birth to save the babies life, and set it up for adoption if she truly can not take care of it?
That is certainly one option, and one I hope is advised and considered. But ultimately it is no one's call to make except the mothers.
And again, infants are not viable life. They can not survive on their own. Neither can elderly people on assisted living. Are you ok with killing them as well as infants?
So to reiterate above, viability is not the determination as to whether it is morally ok to kill something. Hence to answer your question, no, at the very least not in your given parameters. Because both infants and elderly people are human beings and because there is seemly no push factors involved at the level of a woman's health.
And to be clear, I am talking about aborted babies. Here is a picture without the blood(less graphic) of an aborted baby. Literally what they do an in abortion, this is not feelings, just straight facts, is they take a tool and grasp the babies limbs, one by one, and pull them off. The baby can feel pain. They crush the skull and the brains of the baby are sucked out, and then they remove all the skull pieces. Let me ask you, as compassionately as possible, truly, in your heart, are you ok with that? Does a women have a right to kill that baby?
Why do you have an avatar that implies you favor facts over feelings and then attempt to manipulate me emotionally? How pathetic and hypocritical can you get? Apart from that in answer to your question, my opinion still hasn't changed. It is a mother's right to do what she wants with her fetus though I would hope that she makes such decisions fully informed and given plenty of options. If she isn't, the state has failed both her and her unborn.
-->
@dustryder
Bro, gotta be honest, It's very hard to piece together your positions.
You say "viability is not the determination as to whether it is morally ok to kill something" and then you also say "Viability is the marker for personhood. Personhood is what gives moral value"
My interpretation of what you are saying is that in order for someone to gain personhood, they must be viable. But you contradict your own statement by essentially saying "viability is not the determination to morally kill something or not." If viability is what gives personhood, and personhood gives moral value, but then viability is not what gives moral value, then what are you saying??
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
You're overly focused on the viability bit. The most significant part is personhood, which is initially marked by viability but not predicated upon viability to maintain the status of personhood. Or in otherwords, personhood does not come and go depending on the status of viability of the person.
In the hypotheticals you gave, the infants and the elderly might in your definition be considered unviable now, however they maintain personhood because they passed the stage of fetal viability. Since personhood is ultimately the decider in moral worth, their current status of unviability in whatever definition you give it is irrelevant.
-->
@dustryder
There are positives and negatives for restricting abortion. Yes, I do find that an unborn child's life is more important than whatever financial impacts may occur. The woman, 99.5% of the time, chose to enter into risky behavior that created this life, and now I would prefer restricting her ability to kill it.
I don't know how you can call a moral framework that abuses women as valid. Not all moral frameworks are equal. Not all ideas are equal. I feel like you are just saying it is perfectly fine in their 'context' to be consistent. However, based on the outcomes of a moral framework, you can get a pretty decent idea of what is wrong vs right. Western societies are much more peaceful, less corrupt, etc. They share a similar base framework. Now, contrast that with the Middle East. There is tons of rape, wars, etc. So, if you think that woman-abusing, rape, and wars are just as good as democracies with much less corruption, protections on private property, not throwing gays off of rooftops, then I'm not sure what else there is to say to you. You would have to think the Nazi's framework of killing and jailing any non-Aryan is just as valid as the one in New Zealand today, and I don't think you actually believe that.
Homosapien = human being. Where does your distinction come from? Why are you distinguishing the two?
-->
@dustryder
Ok, so my takeaway from that is basically "Once you gain personhood, you gain moral value, and once you have personhood it can not be taken away" Correct?
How do newborn infants gain personhood when they can not survive on their own? If viability is the marker, an infant has never gained viability.
-->
@dustryder
When is the point where you can't abort a baby?