Good Pro-Life Arguments

[laylow]

Fair enough. But there are zealots on both sides and most act in an irrational manner.

 

[laylow]

No, it obviously isn’t because “personhood” is not a scientific concept.

Yes. And this becomes more obvious when you understand how many of the non-religious view humans, in that they do not believe in the concept of a ‘soul.’ They believe the brain makes the person. This idea is re-enforced to the unfortunate ones who have to experience a loved one go through a brain injury or brain disease, which in many cases renders the victim a shell of their former self. I would argue they are not even the same “person.”

 

[laylow]

We have a radical culture of death, worse than any societies that have existed in the past.

I see so many comments such as these, most appearing to be anti-liberal rhetoric. I have never truly understood them. You mean to tell me that today’s society is worse than back in the bible days (and of course earlier) when many small “offenses” were subject to death? I mean crucifixions were nearly a cottage industry during the time of Jesus.

 

[Catholicwife32]

You’re oversimplifying it and creating a strawman argument to feed to people.

First off, there’s a distinction between one’s view on the morality of abortion and one’s political view on whether abortion should be illegal or not. The first is about whether people should have abortions. The second is what role should government play in abortion.

The term Pro Life refers to those who feel out of a sense of moral justice that government policies should work to prevent abortions. The primary view is that this should be done by blocking access to abortion. The current Republican approach is to over-regulate abortions to create great inconveniences and to make it economically unfeasible for clinics to stay open. Overturning Roe is about being able to restrict access more directly.

The Pro Choice view sees government regulations on as doing greater harm than good. Indeed, one can be morally Pro Life, believing abortion is immoral, and still hold a Pro Choice position on the role of government regulation and restriction.

There’s a lot of detail that goes into people’s views. In arguing with people about abortion, or any subject, you need to listen to their own views, asking them questions whether than assuming their views perfectly match your every presumption.

If you want to argue effectively, the goal is not to win. A lot of people wrongfully view arguments as being about preparing for a battle. “What are my most effective weapons?” They prep ahead of time and guard and put armor on. They aim and duck for cover.

Arguments fought like this look like two people yelling past each other. They don’t respond to each other’s words. Some arguments are aimed at baiting the opponent and then attacking. They get frustrated when the individual doesn’t take the bait. “You didn’t answer my question!” Rhetorical and logical fallacies exist all over till the individuals realize they’re not being listened to. Then they start insulting each other’s character, because certainly a sincere person would be hit so hard with my truth, it’d be a glorious victory.

The reality is, good honest debate involves two people coming at each other recognizing that they do NOT understand each other yet. They are mutually openminded. As Chesterton said, the purpose of an open mind is to close it on something solid. I’d add, and then it is to chew on it. Being openminded is simply a willness to listen, to seek understanding more than to seek to be understood. When I open my mind to chew on their perspective, this allows me to find our common ground and our points of departure. And as such, I can say “Here’s where we agree. But more specifically, I believe X, Y, Z.”

The big thing, is not stereotyping the person you’re talking to. Talk to them as an individual. Talk to them with love and humility. If you’re demonizing those who disagree with you, you’ve lost the argument before you’ve begun.

 

[Sbee0]

(1/2)

Sbee0:

Nope I’m very well versed in that, as demonstrated.

Ok. Well. That was an anecdote, which is a no-no for good rhetoric. Based on, you know, the actually extant rules to this stuff that you can read all about in your intro to philosophical logic textbooks. Which you seem to suggest you’ve covered.

Call it what you want, but my point stands.

And that’s not quite true. Nobody is trying to destroy a right to choose. You will see in the coming years that nobody is going to attempt to overturn R vs W.

Great. Then let’s call it settled and move on to other things that are still “in the air”. How do you feel about, say, immigration policy?

I hope many, many immigrants from all over come to America. We must enforce borders but let’s not put up barriers to those who do want to come to America. Make the legal path more attractive and easier to use. And putting children and other people in cages is detestable in this country. Let’s fix that.

As I’ve said, the goal of pro lifers is to educate and inform on the matter…

Wish that were true. Most every pro-lifer on these forums wants to overturn Roe.

I can’t speak for others, but overturning RvW will not end abortion and certainly not the illegal variety. Getting people’s minds and hearts to understand what the act really is, will do that much better. I’ve long said that abortion is a symptom of society’s failure to protect and stand up for women in need. It is not a cure for that. So let’s fix that too. Give women who may be pregnant and desperate the support and care they need. Raise my taxes if you need to. Get it done. (and btw, the Church is doing an excellent job on this front) I am politically centrist but I know we are Americans and we support each other, it’s not everyone for themselves. Time to work together to end the scourge of the murder of unborn children, which it is.

 

[Sbee0]

(2/2)

• and science is happily quite persuasive-

No, it obviously isn’t because “personhood” is not a scientific concept.

Science can put the argument of “it’s just tissue” in it’s rightful place in the myth column.
For personhood - that’s where logic and reason come in. Personhood cannot and should not be determined by people as I’ve proven. When one says that the unborn child is not a person because of attributes X, Y, and Z I can easily apply those same attributes to wrongly argue that a born person is not a person, hence it is a fallacious argument. So as far as I’m concerned this line of thinking should not matter in this debate when you’re talking about the right to life of an unborn child. And round and round we go

And if in the end those who compare an unborn child/fetus to “just some tissue” etc are reduced to a tiny statistically insignificant minority - we did our job.

I think the intrinsic goal of being “pro-life” is fewer deaths - like abortion. And we’re getting that done. In spades. Now, if we can just get out of these pointless, unending wars in the middle east…

Yes, fewer deaths. And we can do even better once people understand what abortion really is.
As for your last part - yes please. Get the warmongering neocons out of government and get out of the middle east. Totally with you on that part.

And it’s also not quite true that pro “choicers”- I’ll use that term as much as I detest it- aren’t forcing their views on pro lifers.

How can you “force” liberty on someone? Serious question. It’s what they naturally have if left alone. And choice is ultimately about liberty.

First of all, when you say liberty, I assume you don’t mean absolute freedom as there is no such thing in a non anarchist society.

Liberty is not forced, but consequences as a result of choice are. With that said, then what exactly is choice with consequences? Is that really still genuine liberty? Sure you won’t get arrested for choosing one way or the other but consequences can be just as real. So I don’t think it is. When someone especially someone you care about says you better not date (whoever), you better not vote for the Democrat candidate, support abortion/prolife, etc or I will hate you, I will kick you in the face, and/or there will be other consequences, you will be denied funding, etc… is that really liberty and freedom to choose? I say no it isn’t. That’s the way that views are enforced on others. Unless you are a pure libertarian (and maybe you are) - do you now see my objection to the term “pro choice” being used as a euphemism for pro abortion rights?

Could be mistaken but perhaps this is the part where you begin to see a tiny speck of blue among the clouds before the rays shine through.

For one thing, in Canada…

I’m not going to answer for the government of Canada.

See above. But it does validate what I said about pro abortion rights forcing their views on others. Choice with consequences is not choice imo.

 

[Vonsalza]

Gingersnaps4:

We have a radical culture of death, worse than any societies that have existed in the past.

I see so many comments such as these, most appearing to be anti-liberal rhetoric. I have never truly understood them. You mean to tell me that today’s society is worse than back in the bible days (and of course earlier) when many small “offenses” were subject to death? I mean crucifixions were nearly a cottage industry during the time of Jesus.

I’ll have to look it up, but sometime around the Pax Romana a Roman elite was killed by a slave. As crucifixion was the recommended punishment, the slave as well as the other 400 slaves (women and children included) on the estate were also crucified to send a message to the slaves of the empire. They lined the closest road in what was undoubtedly a grisly spectacle.

“Fun” fact, there was always an effort to conserve material. Crucifixions were rarely high up - they were typically ground level. If the sufferer could but just slide their foot off the nail, they could place it on the ground and relieve much of the suffering.

The wood and nails were usually recovered and repurposed after the body rotted off (if it wasn’t removed by loved ones) - hence why we find so little evidence of crucifixion despite the abundant testimony.

 

[Vonsalza]

You’re oversimplifying it and creating a strawman argument to feed to people.

First off, there’s a distinction between one’s view on the morality of abortion and one’s political view on whether abortion should be illegal or not. The first is about whether people should have abortions. The second is what role should government play in abortion.

The term Pro Life refers to those who feel out of a sense of moral justice that government policies should work to prevent abortions. The primary view is that this should be done by blocking access to abortion. The current Republican approach is to over-regulate abortions to create great inconveniences and to make it economically unfeasible for clinics to stay open. Overturning Roe is about being able to restrict access more directly.

The Pro Choice view sees government regulations on as doing greater harm than good. Indeed, one can be morally Pro Life, believing abortion is immoral, and still hold a Pro Choice position on the role of government regulation and restriction.

There’s a lot of detail that goes into people’s views. In arguing with people about abortion, or any subject, you need to listen to their own views, asking them questions whether than assuming their views perfectly match your every presumption.

If you want to argue effectively, the goal is not to win. A lot of people wrongfully view arguments as being about preparing for a battle. “What are my most effective weapons?” They prep ahead of time and guard and put armor on. They aim and duck for cover.

Arguments fought like this look like two people yelling past each other. They don’t respond to each other’s words. Some arguments are aimed at baiting the opponent and then attacking. They get frustrated when the individual doesn’t take the bait. “You didn’t answer my question!” Rhetorical and logical fallacies exist all over till the individuals realize they’re not being listened to. Then they start insulting each other’s character, because certainly a sincere person would be hit so hard with my truth, it’d be a glorious victory.

The reality is, good honest debate involves two people coming at each other recognizing that they do NOT understand each other yet. They are mutually openminded. As Chesterton said, the purpose of an open mind is to close it on something solid. I’d add, and then it is to chew on it. Being openminded is simply a willness to listen, to seek understanding more than to seek to be understood. When I open my mind to chew on their perspective, this allows me to find our common ground and our points of departure. And as such, I can say “Here’s where we agree. But more specifically, I believe X, Y, Z.”

The big thing, is not stereotyping the person you’re talking to. Talk to them as an individual. Talk to them with love and humility. If you’re demonizing those who disagree with you, you’ve lost the argument before you’ve begun.

Excellent post.

 

[laylow]

I’ll have to look it up, but sometime around the Pax Romana a Roman elite was killed by a slave. As crucifixion was the recommended punishment, the slave as well as the other 400 slaves (women and children included) on the estate were also crucified to send a message to the slaves of the empire. They lined the closest road in what undoubtedly a grisly spectacle.

“Fun” fact, there was always an effort to conserve material. Crucifixions were rarely high up - they were typically ground level. If the sufferer could but just slide their foot off the nail, they could place it on the ground and relive much of the suffering.

The wood and nails were usually recovered and repurposed after the body rotted off (if it wasn’t removed by loved ones) - hence why we find so little evidence of crucifixion despite the abundant testimony.

Thank goodness for advancements in society…well outside the radical Muslim community anyway.

 

[Sbee0]

The term Pro Life refers to those who feel out of a sense of moral justice that government policies should work to prevent abortions

Good post overall although I’m not sure I agree with this. Being truly pro life is MUCH broader than this one issue. As a pro lifer and Catholic, I cannot and will never support the death penalty or assisted suicide for example.

 

[Joe_5859]

To be fair, the term “pro-life” was originally coined specifically in reference to the issue of abortion. And that’s still the sense in which most people commonly understand the term.

True, if we look at what the term literally means, the application is much broader than just the one issue. And as Catholics, we should be “pro-life” in the broadest sense. But it’s still the case the, most often, people use the term in speaking of their position on abortion.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Personhood cannot and should not be determined by people as I’ve proven. When one says that the unborn child is not a person because of attributes X, Y, and Z I can easily apply those same attributes to wrongly argue that a born person is not a person, hence it is a fallacious argument. So as far as I’m concerned this line of thinking should not matter in this debate when you’re talking about the right to life of an unborn child. And round and round we go

This is exactly right. We are talking about the killing of human beings, here. I actually think this is how euthanasia has gotten such a strong foothold in other countries, even euthanasia done without the person’s consent.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Abortion is not a political issue, and should not be conflated with one. it’s a moral issue. Up until very recently both political parties were against abortion. Yes this is worse than biblical days because millions have died and you have even regular citizens supporting it, mothers killing their own children.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Personhood cannot and should not be determined by people as I’ve proven. When one says that the unborn child is not a person because of attributes X, Y, and Z I can easily apply those same attributes to wrongly argue that a born person is not a person, hence it is a fallacious argument. So as far as I’m concerned this line of thinking should not matter in this debate when you’re talking about the right to life of an unborn child. And round and round we go

This is exactly right. We are talking about the killing of human beings, here. I actually think this is how euthanasia has gotten such a strong foothold in other countries, even euthanasia done without the person’s consent.

The whole idea of euthanasia / so called assisted suicide or “death with dignity” and the social left’s attempts to normalize it and make it such a noble act - ought to scare the daylights out of everyone. We ought to be better than this.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Yes. It started in the Netherlands as a “noble thing” like supporters are now saying here and now, people are routinely euthanized without their consent.

 

[Sbee0]

You’re right. It really is frightening. The slippery slope is real.

Also occurred and normalized in Germany in the 1930s (Action T4) and we see where that went.

 

[laylow]

Abortion is not a political issue, and should not be conflated with one. it’s a moral issue. Up until very recently both political parties were against abortion. Yes this is worse than biblical days because millions have died and you have even regular citizens supporting it, mothers killing their own children.

You can repeat it as many times as you want, scream it at the top of your lungs, but it doesn’t change reality; abortion is a political issue at the forefront. Many people are even willing to look past Donald Trump’s obvious and explicit moral short-comings for the possibility of having it be illegal.

I’m not sure how much early history you read, but abortion happened in biblical times as well, probably at the same rate as now. They were not even thought to be immoral. Couple that with liberal killings of people who disobeyed authority and you had a virtual bloodbath at times.

 

[laylow]

The whole idea of euthanasia / so called assisted suicide or “death with dignity” and the social left’s attempts to normalize it and make it such a noble act - ought to scare the daylights out of everyone. We ought to be better than this.

Let me know when you see someone die a horrible death from ALS, or Huntington’s, or lung cancer, etc. and tell me that they shouldn’t have the choice to end their suffering humanely if they choose. Liberty! I thought our country was founded on it?

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

The whole idea of euthanasia / so called assisted suicide or “death with dignity” and the social left’s attempts to normalize it and make it such a noble act - ought to scare the daylights out of everyone. We ought to be better than this.

Let me know when you see someone die a horrible death from ALS, or Huntington’s, or lung cancer, etc. and tell me that they shouldn’t have the choice to end their suffering humanely if they choose. Liberty! I thought our country was founded on it?

I actually have, not first hand but knowing the impact it has. It’s brutal. But with the proper palliative care, suffering can be managed and studies have shown that pain is the number one reason for someone to supposedly want this.

Patients can also stop treatment anytime. But I’m not talking about that I’m talking about deliberate murder where the patient in question has given dubious consent that may or may not be of their own will.

This fundamentally changes the whole notion of care and the relationship between doctor patient.

The slippery slope is real. We see limits on what is acceptable conditions for this to be eroding slowly. Now in some places there is euthanasia for dubious “mental illness” reasons.

This cannot be allowed to happen or continue here.

 

[Sbee0]

With Action T4, “compassion” was a big reason why that program was put in place. Sound familiar?

The idea really is frightening.