Every pro-lifer always, without fail, gets it wrong on abortion.

Author: TWS1405
Abortion
pro-life
pro-choice
misnomer

Posts

Total: 313
#211
Uragirimono
Uragirimono's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 74
0
0
5
Uragirimono's avatar
Uragirimono
0
0
5
-->
@Lemming
This is the crux of your reply:

But for many people, an unborn fully developed, moments from birth, is no different from a newborn.

The freedom of pro-choice is that if you believe an unborn baby equals a newborn than you have all the freedom in the world to act on that. Give birth to many kids, help many expectant mothers, adopt unwanted children, fight for maternal rights and parental leave. Make the world a better place for the unborn. No one is stopping you.

The challenge of pro-life is that if you do not believe an unborn baby equals a newborn you are trapped. Pro-choice traps no one, as everyone capable of making a choice is free to make it. It is an unfortunate reality that babies in utero aren't capable of making a choice, but saying "they should get the right to choose too" is ignoring reality and appealing to fantasy. I wish we could ask the unborn what we wanted, but we can't. It is folly to assume all children would wish to be born as all the living do not wish to be alive. Statistically, if we could ask the unborn what they wanted, some would choose not to be live.  I will therefore not trap people for the sake of the theoretical and impossible to determine wishes of another. 

By being pro-choice, I am saying "we don't share beliefs, but I support your right to act on them how you see fit."
By being pro-life, they are saying "I don't care if you agree with me, you will be legally forced to follow my beliefs."



#212
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,328
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Shila
But the problem to my brain,
Is that they 'exist, 'maybe.

The argument that effects me 'most into the Pro Choice camp,
Is 'not the mother's freedom to do whatever she wants with her body,
I don't agree with that argument.

No, the argument that worries me,
Is the claim that the unborn is not human, nor a person, not valuable.
Of 'that, I am uncertain.

. . .

The unborn already 'exist,
Suppose someone 'never left the womb,
Grew old, intelligent, died of old age,
Just because they did not leave their mother's body, they did not exist?

I don't agree.

. . .

I also don't agree or care about the suffering,
It's too bad, but the unborn 'exists (I know I'm repeating that a lot)

Legality does not equal morality.
Topic's author
#213
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Shila
Added10.06.22 07:51AM
-->@TWS1405
Being human in origin does not make [a] human being.

A human liver cell (take any organ for that matter/example), when analyzed, is human in origin, contains DNA identifying it as human and the genetic makeup allowing one to determine the kind of tissue that it is (i.e., what organ it is) within the human organism (and whether it is male or female). That cell =/= [a] human being. 


Potentiality =/= Actuality

Never has. Never will. 
A human is still a human even if it has less an organ or limb.
False equivalency fallacy. I am not comparing incomplete (born) human beings to other complete (born) human beings. 

Strawman fallacy. Nothing I said/wrote has anything to do with (born) human beings who have lost a non-vital organ or limb to those (born) human beings that have not.

Red herring fallacy. Talking about (born) human beings with a missing non-vital organ or limb has nothing to do with this debate/discussion.

Try again. 
#214
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,328
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Uragirimono
The chance not to trap another into life,
Was 'before choosing to have sex,
In my view.

I 'do agree you're right on,
If I do not believe an unborn baby equals a newborn I am trapped,

Though I don't view it as 'trapped,
So much as a prerequisite to changing my stance,
If I could be convinced that an unborn was completely lacking meaning, existence, humanity, personhood, soul, until it drew it's first breath outside the womb,
I would change my stance to Pro Choice.
Also, just using 'soul poetically.

. . .


“Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."
[To Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of Sati religious funeral practice of burning widows alive on her husband’s funeral pyre.]

#215
Uragirimono
Uragirimono's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 74
0
0
5
Uragirimono's avatar
Uragirimono
0
0
5
-->
@Lemming
Though I don't view it as 'trapped,
So just to confirm, you believe that I, who would feel trapped by a pregnancy, should have to feel/be that way for nine months because you personally don't see me as trapped, and that this is the most morally good outcome of my situation. Yes?

I'm referring specifically to you and I, not random humans.

#216
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,328
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Uragirimono
Ah, no, it seems I misunderstood you,
I thought you were saying that if it could be proved the unborn was not equal to a born,
Then I would by trapped by logic, and unable to hold my Pro Life view with consistency,
My bad in reading and responding perhaps.

. . .

Though in a 'new answer,
Even if someone felt trapped by a pregnancy,
I would be 'greatly morally bothered by them terminating the unborn,
I am 'highly influenced by my perceptions and values to see it as murder,
It seems a lesser evil to insist the child be carried and born.
(To 'my values)

The person 'would be trapped by the pregnancy though,
Well, only if kept trapped by people or conscience, I suppose.
Abortion relieves that trap I suppose,
Though some people are never freed of the guilt and shame of their action,
Depends on beliefs and values.

. . .

Because of my uncertainty,
I'm more inclined myself for people to move to states, where the laws reflect their personal values.

I'm also inclined for there to be gray areas in Pro Life/Choice,
Exceptions to rules exist,
Situations where one or the other is acceptable, I'd imagine.
Topic's author
#217
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Public-Choice
->@TWS1405
As such, there is NO child(ren) within the womb. None. That is just a FACT.
Sigh... Here we go...

I shall be using a biology dictionary and a medical dictionary since this is the nature of what we are discussing.

Offspring: New organisms produced by a living thing. [1]

As per the biology dictionary above on the entry for humans:

"The zygote that forms from fertilization divides mitotically and lodges in the uterus to develop into an embryo. The human embryo undergoes the following major embryonic stages: blastula » gastrula » neurula. The embryonic phase covers the first eight weeks of gestation. By the ninth week, the embryo develops into a fetus." [2]
You didn't post anything no one didn't already know. 

Being human in origin still doesn't make [a] human being.

Organ tissue from a human liver, heart, bladder...it's all human in origin. Doesn't make those human organ cells = to [a] human being.


An embryo is specifically called human by biologists for one simple reason, all humans begin their life process as an embryo. Think of it like being a tadpole before becoming a frog. We don't claim the tadpole isn't a frog, because it is one, just not a fully-developed frog. So a human embryo is still a human, we just call it a fetus or an embryo.
Semantics argument. And a piss poor one at that. All it does is feed into the emotive side of the debate/discussion, not facts. Potential frog =/= an actual frog. Potential human being =/= an actual human being. That's reality. That's fact. Period.


So an embryo also counts as an offspring, because the embryo is a new organism produced by a living thing. Therefore, embryos are both human offspring and also the first stage of life for a human.
Still =/= [a] human being. I mean FFS, what part of THIS did you fail to comprehend!?! Do I need to post more pictures for you to establish a crystal-clear picture of reality here!

This is why biologists state that human life begins at conception, even pro-abortion biologists will generally admit this fact.
Conception meets the basic biological criterion for cellular life, but that cellular life =/= [a] human being.


However, you may argue that it is a cell. Well, human beings are simply collections of cells.

No, an actual [a] human being is not simply a collection of cells. It's a lot more complex and nuanced than that. 



This is evidenced from the entry for zygote from the same biology dictionary:

"The cells that sprung from the zygote will essentially have the same genetic composition throughout the body but eventually will acquire a special role or a distinct function as they are organized into tissues, organs, and systems." [3]
That describes exactly what I've been arguing, potentiality will eventually become actuality; but potentiality =/= actuality. Never has. Never will. 


So the next question is why are humans different from tadpoles?

No, that's not a question at all. It is patently irrelevant. A false equivalency fallacy. A red herring.



This is the question of the soul. And there is no reason to believe that fetuses lack a soul.

Soul isn't real. It's a false belief in the metaphysical. 



There is zero scientific justification for this. We also do not see a soul magically appear the second a baby is born. It comes out of the womb moving and even crying in some cases.

Yeah, it's called fetal viability...the ability to survive outside the womb without further gestational development. 



This is clear evidence that fetuses have a soul.
No, it is not. It's pure fiction.



So my question to you is why do you choose to ignore biological evidence?

I don't, but you are. 



Why do you choose to ignore the cycle of life, the offspring created by us humans as human offspring, and choose to shut your ears to the biological facts that a baby is a baby even when it is an embryo?


I don't, but you are. 
#218
Novice_II
Novice_II's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 174
2
6
6
Novice_II's avatar
Novice_II
2
6
6
If anyone is interested in talking about this topic in a serious way rather than back and forth insults, I can probably make a new specific thread for it. My plan is to eventually run my line of argument completely with someone on the opposing side (pro choice). Other than that, it seems like this is falling apart. 
#219
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,219
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Public-Choice
Biology is the study of life. Chemistry is about chemical compounds.
When you have no valid argument, semantics is always a nice backup.

You know very well what I’m saying. Biology is about the stuff we’re made out of, personhood is about the qualities that make us who we are. These are not the same thing. You know that.

Not going through each of these articles as it would be a monumental waste of time so I’ll just address the first;

If the soul has weight then that would make it physical. Is that your assertion?
#220
Uragirimono
Uragirimono's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 74
0
0
5
Uragirimono's avatar
Uragirimono
0
0
5
-->
@Lemming
Abortion relieves that trap I suppose,
Though some people are never freed of the guilt and shame of their action,
Depends on beliefs and values.
Yes, it does depend greatly on beliefs and values. 
All we ask from the pro-choice side is the freedom to legally act on those beliefs and values of our own. We're not asking for something that can't be promised, like a life with no regrets or guilt or shame. We just want to make choices for ourselves so that if there is regret, it was regret we chose and not regret forced us on by others. 

I'm more inclined myself for people to move to states, where the laws reflect their personal values.
This will be impossible if the Republicans get their way and pass a national abortion ban. Even as things sit now, you saying "if you don't like, move" values the wealthy over the poor, as only those that can afford to leave can afford choice. If a national abortion ban passes, will your answer then be "move to countries where the laws reflect their personal values"?

I'm also inclined for there to be gray areas in Pro Life/Choice,
Exceptions to rules exist,
Situations where one or the other is acceptable, I'd imagine.
This is the definition of Pro-Choice. The relationship between mother and fetus is gray, so the mother's opinion matters more than anyone else's. We need to shape laws so that exceptions can exist, so that situations where 'one or the other is acceptable' can happen. So that choices can be made. 
#221
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,328
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Uragirimono
But a person who chooses abortion is not 'only making a choice for themself,
From the perspective of Pro Life.

And it will be impossible for Pro Life individuals to believe that right is being done, if the Democrats get their way, (Their viewpoint)
It 'is a difficult situation.

There are people who are Pro Life, who are willing to accept exceptions,
Such doesn't make them Pro Choice, I think,
But perhaps it's a failure of tribalism,
Creating two viewpoints, that whirl about one another, black and white thinking, no room for concession,
Though admittedly people find moral concessions hard at times,
They 'dislike such I'd suppose,
One often only agrees to an evil because it is lesser, because one is unable to prevent it.


#222
Uragirimono
Uragirimono's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 74
0
0
5
Uragirimono's avatar
Uragirimono
0
0
5
-->
@Lemming
There are people who are Pro Life, who are willing to accept exceptions,
Such doesn't make them Pro Choice, I think,
It 100% makes them pro-choice. If you would ever say "this is a difficult situation that should be left to the choice of the mother" you are pro-choice. 

Creating two viewpoints, that whirl about one another, black and white thinking, no room for concession,
I agree we've been divided by politics hoping to use us against each other, but let's look at the options logically. If I am saying "the mother should have the right to choose" and believing that makes me pro-choice, then the opposite would make me pro-life. The opposite of "the mother should have the right to choose" is "the mother should not have the right to choose."

This is the core argument -- Should the mother have the right to choose? If you think so, then you are pro-choice. 

I personally wouldn't care if we threw the terms pro-choice and pro-life out the window and asked instead "Do you think the government should override my decisions on what I do with my uterus?" It's a yes or no question and so far every pro-lifer I've spoken to on here has said "yes".

Any other detail is overcomplicating a matter for no other reason than to make ourselves feel better about the harsh biological reality of reproduction.
#223
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,328
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Uragirimono
Let's say a mother has a miscarriage, and the baby dies, and it needs to be removed.
Let's say that the baby will 100% kill itself and it's mother during birth if there is no abortion.

Just because someone who is against abortion allows exceptions to their rule of no abortions,
Does not make them 100% Pro Choice.

100% Pro Choice would be allowing the mother to terminate her unborn at any point for any reason, I'd think.


#224
Uragirimono
Uragirimono's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 74
0
0
5
Uragirimono's avatar
Uragirimono
0
0
5
-->
@Lemming
100% Pro Choice would be allowing the mother to terminate her unborn at any point for any reason, I'd think.

Genuinely, this isn't meant to be snarky. 
But who do you think you are that you can allow a mother to do anything?
Why do her motivations have to meet your standards in order to be valid, particularly since her decision either way won't affect you at all?
#225
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Lemming
--> @Shila
But the problem to my brain,
Is that they 'exist, 'maybe.

The argument that effects me 'most into the Pro Choice camp,
Is 'not the mother's freedom to do whatever she wants with her body,
I don't agree with that argument.

No, the argument that worries me,
Is the claim that the unborn is not human, nor a person, not valuable.
Of 'that, I am uncertain.
All these arguments were considered and abortion was declared legal for the last fifty years.
It is silly to re-litigate what was settled law for over fifty years.
What is different is the makeup of the Supreme Court . The decision was not based on any change in facts but was solely politically driven.

#226
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,328
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Shila
@Uragirimono
It hinges on the perception of the unborn having human/person value,
People don't like it when parents kill their children.

If a person wanted to cut, tattoo, commit suicide,
I 'think I would not have the law stop them, 'Probably, depending on situation.

But because I value human freedom, safety from others, I am opposed to mother's aborting their unborn,
Well, I'm not even 'that opposed as I am not 'certain of my stance,
But I 'am against the more extreme Pro Choice arguments (As I see them)

I 'am aware that the mother's freedom loses out some, by preventing her from abortion,
But human freedom is frequently curtailed by circumstance and law.

Just because a law 'was for a long time, does not make it moral,
This is a 'simple concept Shila.

Morals of society change, as the people who make up that society change.
#227
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Lemming
@Shila
Just because a law 'was for a long time, does not make it moral,
This is a 'simple concept Shila.

Morals of society change, as the people who make up that society change.
That is exactly the point I made. Nothing has changed in society or morals. Yet a settled law on abortion rights was reversed.

All these arguments were considered and abortion was declared legal for the last fifty years.
It is silly to re-litigate what was settled law for over fifty years.
What is different is the makeup of the Supreme Court . The decision was not based on any change in facts but was solely politically driven.


#228
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,328
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Shila
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
Sorry, I am unwilling to discuss this with you,
'Might be I just don't get it,
But I think that you don't get it,
And I'm not interested enough in convincing you, to continue trying to convince you.
Topic's author
#229
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Lemming
-->@Shila
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
Sorry, I am unwilling to discuss this with you,
'Might be I just don't get it,
But I think that you don't get it,
And I'm not interested enough in convincing you, to continue trying to convince you.
Shila is a bot, that much as been established in the manner in which they interact with others, whereby many are losing interest in engaging them further. I being one of them, as you are now. The list will grow and soon the bot will have no response from anyone. 
#230
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Lemming
--> @Shila
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
Sorry, I am unwilling to discuss this with you,
'Might be I just don't get it,
But I think that you don't get it,
And I'm not interested enough in convincing you, to continue trying to convince you.
What is it that you don’t get?
Morals of society change, as the people who make up that society change.
That is exactly the point I made. Nothing has changed in society or morals. Yet a settled law on abortion rights was reversed.

All these arguments were considered and abortion was declared legal for the last fifty years.
It is silly to re-litigate what was settled law for over fifty years.
What is different is the makeup of the Supreme Court . The decision was not based on any change in facts but was solely politically driven.

#231
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,328
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@TWS1405
@Shila
I'm 90% sure, Shila is not a bot.

I don't want to bang my head into a brick wall.


#232
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Lemming
--> @Shila @TWS1405
I'm 90% sure, Shila is not a bot.

I don't want to bang my head into a brick wall.
Are you afraid you will damage the brick wall?

#233
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,328
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Shila
No, that I'll get a headache.
#234
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Lemming
-> @Shila
No, that I'll get a headache.
So you remember what happened the last time you did it.

Topic's author
#235
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Shila
>@Lemming
-> @Shila
No, that I'll get a headache.
So you remember what happened the last time you did it.
It's this level of retorts that drive others crazy. 
It's irritating and services no purpose other than to derail the debate/discussion. 
Knock it off. Please. 
#236
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TWS1405
--> @Shila
>@Lemming
-> @Shila
No, that I'll get a headache.
So you remember what happened the last time you did it.
It's this level of retorts that drive others crazy. 
It's irritating and services no purpose other than to derail the debate/discussion. 
Knock it off. Please. 
Lemming has the headache. But you are going crazy. Were you on the other side of the wall?

#237
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@TWS1405
LOL!!!! Delusions of grandeur and psychological projection shines bright once again. LOL!!!!
You sure you aren't talking about yourself there, bud? After all, you seem to know better than the FBI on their own UCR and Biologists on biology, without citing any evidence, of course. Like always.

#238
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
GAHHHH!!! SO. MANY. RESPONSES.

If the soul has weight then that would make it physical. Is that your assertion?
I don't claim to know the makeup of the soul, just that science has found evidence it is there.


#239
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Public-Choice
--> @TWS1405
LOL!!!! Delusions of grandeur and psychological projection shines bright once again. LOL!!!!
You sure you aren't talking about yourself there, bud? After all, you seem to know better than the FBI on their own UCR and Biologists on biology, without citing any evidence, of course. Like always.
He might be confusing your bright aura with the bright background you picked for your public image.

#240
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Lemming
Sorry, I am unwilling to discuss this with you,
There's a growing consensus about this.