Best pro-life argument I've seen

[Boler]

Oh, ok, I got you. So you are against the vast majority of 3rd trimester abortions. And just to confirm, it’s because at that point you’d be killing a human being?

 

[Entwhistler]

I"m afraid your arguments about the freedom to choose to abort a fetus is going to fall on the deaf ears of those who believe the fetus is a person. As the libertarian saying goes, “Your freedom to swing your fist ends with my nose.” If we both agree that the fetus is not a human being, then we can talk about freedom. Until then, we need to establish whether the fetus is a human being or not.

As of right now, your argument that the fetus is not a human being has been that it is not viable outside of the mother and that it has no freewill. The problem with both of those is that there are loads of other people who are not viable apart from other people and there are loads of other people who do not have fully formed wills.

 

[Boler]

Is that a yes? You’re against the vast majority of 3rd trimester abortions because it would be killing a human being?

If it can live even with artificial help then yes it should be given the chance as it is a valid lifeform.

So, if technology advances and can help it live starting from the 2nd trimester, then you would be against most 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions?

Is it a good philosophy to allow our current level of technology determine when a human life is valuable/discardable?

 

[Elf01]

You respond in a profane manner comparing abortion to masturbation WTF??? Trying to say that others are being profane?

I have heard that argument not so long ago. Nov 4th actually I was discussing it with someone who seemed to think that they were equivalent.

 

[Thom18]

You respond in a profane manner comparing abortion to masturbation WTF??? Trying to say that others are being profane?
SERIOUSLY when has ANYONE EVER compared abortion to masturbation?!?!
You ignore my question. What give you ownership over these women?

[I flagged you for your masturbation comment as it is in direct violation of the community guidelines]

I think you misunderstood. I’m not the one who speaks profanely. The person who compares abortion to masturbation (the people I often debate) use the profanity. And it happens more often than not. If I provided an example, I’d probably be kicked from the forum (even though they’re not my words).

And that comment of mine wasn’t directed toward you. I posted it just after you posted your response to my first comment (I saw the notification as I was typing). It was just a general comment.

And do explain to me why, exactly, you flagged my comment? We are allowed to use the term here, since it is a commonly discussed issue.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

The Catholic Church teaches that life starts at conception. Not at the first manifesttaion of free will or survivability.

Now of course anyone cvan disagree with that. But they need to explain their thinking.

If personhood requires free will and survivability, what does that make a person with severe brain damage, a comatose person on life support, etc? Would it or would it not be murder to disconnect life support if the person had a fair chance of recovery? An unborn baby has a fair chance of gaining its manifesttaion of free will and survivability iif not murdered first.

 

[Thom18]

Legislation punishes crimes. The people who support ‘pro life’ are inflicting their OPINION onto people through threat of force. This is unlawful and unjust. You are declaring the government step in and imprison people for controlling their own body and associated life processes. You are declaring your opinion to supercede Gods will. What gives you ownership over these women?

Laws unlawful? How do you figure that one? Laws restricting abortion are attempts to preserve the life of the child.

This may be news to you, but all laws are opinion. I have never killed anyone in my life. Why? Well, among other reasons, it’s against the law. The popular opinion in this country is that it’s wrong to kill people. Local, state and federal legislators agreed, and they made their opinion law. What, say you, makes abortion different? What makes it wrong to legislate this opinion, but not another?

 

[Thom18]

And what exactly makes it unlawful to say, “You can’t kill someone”?

 

[Thom18]

Did I ever claim to have ownership over women? What have I said that led you to that conclusion?

Telling someone, “No, you can’t kill this person” isn’t “owning” them. By your very flawed logic, anyone who supports forcing deadbeat dads to pay up “owns” men.

 

[Thom18]

Just cells? You and I are “just cells”, but I’m sure you would say it’s wrong for someone to kill us. What is so different about younger cells?

When sperm and an egg meet, a unique human life begins. That’s fairly “settled science”, and I can provide sources when I get back from work (I’m preparing to leave now) to prove it. Unlike any other group of cells or combination of cells, given enough time and a safe environment, a zygote develops into a fetus. A fetus will then develop further, enough so that it can be delivered and survive outside of the body.

I wonder if the trap you’re falling into is, is the belief that one has no human worth until they can survive outside of the body without extraordinary measures- but then, you need to explain why that’s how we should determine personhood.

Feel free to explain why your definition of personhood is the correct one, and why you intentionally exclude fetuses and zygotes.

 

[Thom18]

No that isn’t claiming to own men it is claiming ownership to their pay [which in this case I support]

Why is a woman entitled to a deadbeat dad’s pay, but he can’t have a say in the abortion decision? You necessarily must believe that he can’t have a say, or else you are allowing him to “own” a woman.

If telling a woman, “You must provide for this child at least until it is born” is “owning” a woman, then telling a man, “You must provide for this child until they turn 18” (or whatever the state law is), is owning a man.

Of course, I don’t believe that there is any “ownership” occurring in either case. I’m simply pointing out your dilemma.

 

[Hope_Philomena]

Well your reply has certainly started something. Discussion is good, but not when you don’t even know what you’re discussing. Why not actually watch the video, which literally addresses all of your points, instead of arguing moot points?

I’ll go ahead and address your points, even though you could’ve just watched a one hour video instead of spending an hour replying to people.

Any who support ‘pro-life’ are in direct violation of Gods will to let the individual to decide for themselves if they will commit that sin or not.

We, as a society, put laws in place to prevent people from committing egregious acts which hurt other people. In this case, the egregious act is abortion and the people being hurt are in fact, the unborn children. This is not a violation of free will; that’s utterly nonsensical. You and I are not going to agree from here on out because you inherently perceive the unborn child to not have true personhood. Again, this is addressed in the video if you would bother watching.

the fallacy that any human can claim dominion over anothers body

Who is claiming dominion over another’s body? It is you who is trying to do so, by saying the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the unborn child simply because it is unborn and, according to many of your replies, not capable of independence. Have you addressed the several people who have pointed out that many living individuals who have been born are also not capable of independence, yet we have established laws that prevent unjust killing of them?

You’ve continuously referred to the baby as a clump of cells throughout this discussion, as you clearly consider the unborn child to be lesser. It’s almost as if… I included a very good video… in the first post… that succinctly proves this point to be invalid… Crazy, right?

It’s not a good idea to try to claim that the pro-life stance is a violation of God’s will. Quite frankly it’s the worst argument I’ve ever seen… From a purely objective standpoint, it holds no validity.

 

[gt14]

To seek to compel a woman to carry this lifeform while it lives off of her body is a violation of human rights.

The baby is a human. The baby is a unique life form that came into creation from two human parents. Let’s take abortion in the case of rape, one of the things said in the video (which I again suggest you fully watch), is essentially why are you giving the child the death penalty when the perpetrator of the crime would not get that sentence in a court of law?

 

[Hope_Philomena]

God, this is truly ridiculous.

Even nature/God understands the rights of the mother come before the [potential] rights of the unborn.

I saw you trying to make this point before. Just because a herb that induces abortion exists doesn’t mean that’s God telling us that abortion is okay. What kind of logic?

Let me know when you watch the video. If you’re not going to watch it, then I don’t think you’re actually open to discussion and instead want to claim superiority over people who are “whining and crying”.

Thanks for derailing my thread with something that could’ve easily been avoided had you even paid attention to the video I posted. Really mature and conducive to a good discussion.

 

[gt14]

I feel you are lacking an understanding of exactly what government can and cannot do.

The base of protecting the sanctity of life is really just that, protecting life, even if there were no governments, no laws, the intentional destruction of human life would still be wrong and a horrific tragedy.

 

[gt14]

This doesn’t make it true. and it certainly doesn’t give anyone the authority to inflict their religious ideation into law.

You can think abortion is wrong without being religious. I grew up in a democratic household with two pro-choice parents and I have always known that abortion is wrong.

 

[gt14]

Governments and laws restrict many things that their “free” citizens can do, intentionally killing children seems like it should make the top of the list.

 

[gt14]

Weather you are religious or not is irrelevant if that belief came from a religious origin

Mine didn’t. The first time I looked up abortion and what actually happened during an abortion was when I knew, it had nothing to do with religion. The horror of that will always resonate with me.

 

[Mary888]

Human beings are not plants. To compare them with this is illogical to empyrical science.
We can not be planted in the earth be sprayed with water under the sun and turn carbon dioxide into oxygen. Whatever we do we take oxygen and consume it and the give away carbon dioxide. This comparison with plants is absurd.

 

[gt14]

It’s not a knee jerk reaction it is the realization of the untold number of children who are killed in a horrific way for what in most cases is the convenience of another. One thing that has always confused and angered me is the ability of people to disassociate from what an abortion actually is.