Good Pro-Life Arguments

[Sbee0]

The only way someone will switch opinions is when they come to the realization that they value the baby’s life as equal to or more than the mothers. Many view human life as cheap and easily produced and they have a point if they don’t value the baby as equal to the mother…I know many pro choice women. I’ve never heard one say they weren’t carrying a life or a human but they don’t necessarily think it’s a person yet. It’s in the process of becoming a person and it is a distinction for them.

Exactly what I am saying. That’s the gap. I have a very different perspective on that and I believe science backs it up. And to close that gap, education is the key.
That’s all.

I didn’t think it was that difficult to understand but perhaps for some it is.

Insisting on calling them pro abortion is unnecessary. They can come back and call you pro forced birther. It helps no one.

I mean Pro abortion rights. To be truly “Pro choice” means you favor one’s freedom of choice on everything. If one insists they’re pro choice when it comes to abortion but not pro choice when it comes to say, my right to own and carry a gun, etc… then they’re not really pro choice at all, from a libertarian sense, they’re just pro abortion rights. Using “pro choice” as a term to just mean you’re pro abortion rights is the logical fallacy of confusing the absolute with the qualified.

A pro choice kicking a pro life demonstrator is horrid behavior. So is killing doctors at clinics. Wrong is wrong

Yep. The latter act of course is in no way shape or form pro life.

 

[Start]

avoid the moral argument as that is theologically based

Theology isn’t being used. The moral standards that are carry similar values to secular ones.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Dude, some friendly advice. Don’t try your gotcha games on me. Its not a good look, I won’t take whatever you have to say seriously, and it won’t end well for you anyway.

Very telling statement.

First, there’s no “gotcha games”. Only reasonable objections made by reasonable people that conflict with your requisite absolutes. And they still stand.

And if you’re not interested in listening to your opposition, you have absolutely zero hope of converting them to your cause. You have to get close enough to the fire to get burned if you want to save any of us poor victims.

I know the playbook from your side of the argument…

Again, no playbook. No conspiracy. Just reasonable people with reasonable objections.

I am very familiar with arguing from logic and what fallacious arguments are. No tabs necessary I assure you.

I’ve no doubts about your confidence.

I do think it’s comical you’d accuse me of being “crypto religious” after you see my secular arguments…

It’s because you provide no secular basis for it. And I understand perfectly. Trying to objectively root a secular moral basis is like wrangling cats, as secular ethicists have been discovering in their supposed post-god age.
Another reminder - science can’t do it. Category error. Different lane.

It’s obvious it’s the classic theistic view underlying pro-lifers just sans explicit mentions of god.

I suspect it’s most likely because your playbook says that we pro lifers don’t know how to argue otherwise.

Again, no playbook. Just rationale that still stands.

So funny how it’s always based on a caricature and not reality.

I agree vigorously. Obviously for slightly different reasons.

Oh but there IS a playbook. That’s why your logic on this has been heard many times from many others, and thus easily refuted, and such refutations are subsequently poorly countered.

I’m arguing this from the perspective of secular science and logic. For some reason you’re desperately insisting I’m really arguing from the perspective of religion (Or crypto religion, whatever that is. Bitcoin of religion? Lol). I am perfectly aware that the faith arguments against abortion won’t get very far with those who don’t share my faith so it’s really not that hard to conclude that secular science is the way to discuss it.

Caricature like I said. You even referred to the caricature yourself. “Classic theistic view”…lol. I’m breaking apart your caricature of the pro lifer and you don’t know what to make of it. Too funny. And quite predictable in itself.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

I think different people respond to different arguments.

Some people can be convinced by logical arguments.

Others can be convinced by emotional arguments.

Other may be convinced by excessivly loud rock music, or because their favourite celebrity says so.

As such there are no right or wrong arguments but just arguments that are or are not suitable for the person and the circumstances.

 

[Vonsalza]

Oh but there IS a playbook.

No, there isn’t. This is an example of you creating caricatures that you accuse your opposition of creating. Which is a bit ironic.

That’s why your logic on this has been heard many times from many others, and thus easily refuted,

Then why can’t you refute them? Seriously - all you do is cry “fallacy!” (usually wrongly) and then ignore the point.

That’s only a “refutation” to those already convinced of your view.

I’m arguing this from the perspective of secular science and logic.

Which won’t work because science cannot make value judgements. That fact that you don’t know this isn’t your fault. Someone has done you a disservice in your education on the topic.

Science can tell you when the unique combination of DNA that composes a unique person first appears - conception. But whether that single-celled zygote should be considered the same as a person, as far as it pertains to law and ethics, is a normative judgement.

And for the umpteenth time, science cannot make that judgement. Wrong field.

For some reason you’re desperately insisting I’m really arguing from the perspective of religion

Because the notion that a single-celled zygote is the same as a person is an ideological statement rather than a scientific one. So it’s certainly a normative statement, but if you’d like to argue that it’s ideological rather than purely religious, I’m fine with that.

In reality, human beings undergo transitional stages into “personhood” as it pertains to their rights and privileges. When you turn X years old, you get access to this benefit. A few years later when you turn Y years old, you get access to another.

(Or crypto religion, whatever that is. Bitcoin of religion? Lol).

No. Whenever someone is crypto-something as it pertains to ideas it means that they’re whatever that “something” is, but they’re trying to hide or mask it. For example, William F. Buckley was once accused of being a crypto-fascist - meaning he was an authentic fascist that was trying to hide the fact.

I am perfectly aware that the faith arguments against abortion won’t get very far with those who don’t share my faith so it’s really not that hard to conclude that secular science is the way to discuss it.

This is a point of progress - if people don’t share your religion, then they won’t share your base views.

The very same goes for ideology in general. If a zygote is not fully a person to them, then they still won’t share your view. Telling them “you MUST start here” (so as to set up your rhetoric) is just a non-starter that’s fully rebutted with a simple “No I don’t”.

 

[Vonsalza]

In order to make someone who is secular or, at least in a religion that has no objection to abortion you need to avoid the moral argument as that is theologically based and, instead discuss values.

Bingo. You absolutely nailed it. Brute logic is always going to come up short.

There must be a discussion about values and why your values are so important to you. And then the presenter has to accept that it’s still an accept/reject proposition.

Final thought: the story about the stowaway on the ship was interesting. I’m not sure how I would deal with it if I had to risk my health and life for nine months in order to assure the stowaway’s survival. If I truly thought I would starve and possibly die for such a long period of time, I really would think hard about trying to save him. Not saying I would push him over…but I’d think long and hard about it.

I think most folks see it just like you do - particularly if the damage you incur to save the stowaway is very likely to be lasting.

There’s no obvious choice.

 

[Sbee0]

(1/2)

No, there isn’t. This is an example of you creating caricatures that you accuse your opposition of creating. Which is a bit ironic.

Yes there is. All the pro abortion rights talking points are the same, and they really are quite easy to respond to. I find most (not all, but most) on the side of abortion rights picture pro lifers as people who are incapable of thinking freely and arguing from reason and logic and thus ill prepared to handle the talking points. I suppose a few may be the latter, but the vast majority aren’t. Caricature, by its very definition. I find it quite comical to see their reaction when they realize their caricature is wrong. Especially when they start out with a condescending tone like they are talking to their intellectual inferiors. It is quite amusing. Not saying you of course, just in general.

Then why can’t you refute them?

I have. Quite easily actually. Just about all of the pro abortion rights talking points are riddled with fallacious arguments and I’m always happy to point them out.

Which won’t work because science cannot make value judgements. That fact that you don’t know this isn’t your fault. Someone has done you a disservice in your education on the topic.

(clipped for space)

It appears you missed my point. Perhaps that’s not your fault and I wasn’t clear. Yes, of course science cannot determine personhood as it is not a biological trait or marker that can be identified. It’s in the philosophical realm. So if science cannot determine personhood then what makes you think people’s “feelings” can do any better? Not only do we not have the authority to make that determination, history has proven that when people try to make that determination, they are wrong and the results are tragic. Dred Scott said that African Americans are 3/5 of a person. The German government in the 30s did not view Jews as persons. So obviously people should not be in the business of doing so.

The pro abortion rights argument says abortion ought to be ok before X weeks because the unborn child is not a person before X weeks, as before X weeks, the unborn child has or lacks trait Y. And that is clearly undoubtedly indeniably indisputably a fallacious argument. Fact, not opinion.

I would hope you’d say that the idea of denying a smaller, less developed and dependent human being personhood entitled to the right to life would be a big problem if you’re talking about someone who is already born. So what’s the difference between that and someone with the same attributes who is not born yet.

The personhood logic in favor of abortion is just as fallacious and flawed as any other.

Because the notion that a single-celled zygote is the same as a person is an ideological statement rather than a scientific one. (clipped)

I never said that or at least that wasn’t my intent. I said that the perceived lack of personhood is not an argument in favor of abortion. If that wasn’t clear, then hopefully it is now. Also, nobody talks about abortion when it comes to a single-celled zygote so that’s in itself is a red herring.

 

[Sbee0]

(2/2)

In reality, human beings undergo transitional stages into “personhood” as it pertains to their rights and privileges. When you turn X years old, you get access to this benefit. A few years later when you turn Y years old, you get access to another.

That may be true post partum, but it is a non argument when it comes to the right to abort a living human being. The right of a child to get those benefits at age X has absolutely zilch to do with the right to be killed or not killed when the unborn child is at stage Z. A person is denied the right to vote before age 18, that is completely different than killing them before they reach that age so they never get there.

No. Whenever someone is crypto-something as it pertains to ideas it means that they’re whatever that “something” is, but they’re trying to hide or mask it. For example, William F. Buckley was once accused of being a crypto-fascist - meaning he was an authentic fascist that was trying to hide the fact.

Fair enough. It’s fair to say I was not being crypto religious at all.

This is a point of progress - if people don’t share your religion, then they won’t share your base views.

Yes. I thought that perspective was crystal clear at the very beginning but perhaps it wasn’t. Hopefully it is now.

The very same goes for ideology in general. If a zygote is not fully a person to them, then they still won’t share your view. Telling them “you MUST start here” (so as to set up your rhetoric) is just a non-starter that’s fully rebutted with a simple “No I don’t”.

Only if you misunderstood my point which it seems you did. To change people’s minds on the topic the conversation must change people’s minds on what the unborn child is. The fact that people still ingenuously say the unborn child is not a living human being, or comparing the unborn child to just a clump of cells, a tumor, a growth, or whatever else shows that there’s a lot of work to do to educate people on this subject.

 

[Joe_5859]

Can you explain the logical distinction between the following:

• “I’m personally pro-life. But I defend the freedom of individuals to choose for themselves just like I chose for me.”
• “I’m personally against slavery. But I defend the freedom of individuals to choose for themselves just like I chose for me.”
• I’m personally against torturing toddlers for fun. But I defend the freedom of individuals to choose for themselves just like I chose for me.
• I’m personally tossing kittens off the side of the Grand Canyon. But I defend the freedom of individuals to choose for themselves just like I chose for me.

We can and do legislate things that are wrong even when they don’t affect us personally. Why is it okay to do that in some areas, but not with regards to abortion?

 

[Vonsalza]

Can you explain the logical distinction between the following:

I can only be reasonably asked to explain my own forwarded views, not those attributed to me.

But as I have a long-standing love of rhetoric, I’ll give it a shot;

• “I’m personally pro-life. But I defend the freedom of individuals to choose for themselves just like I chose for me.”

Sure. I recognize the enormous and permanent affects of pregnancy on a woman. I have absolutely no standing to say that other women must be forced to suffer those realities for the sake of the unborn.

• “I’m personally against slavery. But I defend the freedom of individuals to choose for themselves just like I chose for me.”

I think debt-slavery as suggested in scripture (and forgiven every Jubilee) might actually be a just institution. Enslavement on the basis of race or parentage is meaninglessly arbitrary to me and cannot be rationally supported.

• I’m personally against torturing toddlers for fun. But I defend the freedom of individuals to choose for themselves just like I chose for me.

I don’t support that because I think we have a moral responsibility to minimize suffering. As such, suffering created for it’s own sake cannot be tolerated.

• I’m personally tossing kittens off the side of the Grand Canyon. But I defend the freedom of individuals to choose for themselves just like I chose for me.

This is essentially the same as the above. The creation of suffering for its own sake is quintessentially immoral and cannot be tolerated. Now, if you’re tossing the kittens because the animal shelter is over-populated and culling is necessary then you might have some grounds. But in that case I’d suggest we brainstorm some less barbaric ways to kill those kittens.

Here’s the big kicker for all of these - you’re free to disagree or agree.

We can and do legislate things that are wrong even when they don’t affect us personally. Why is it okay to do that in some areas, but not with regards to abortion?

That’s easy - we do it because they’re wrong on grounds that people largely agree with.

Abortion isn’t one of those things.

 

[Vonsalza]

Yes there is… I find most (not all, but most) on the side of abortion rights picture…

This is just an attempt to dehumanize your opposition in an attempt to poison the well.
There is no playbook. I’ve been personally pro-life but unwilling to force my views on anyone about it for a few decades now and I’ve never seen this playbook.

I find it quite comical to see their reaction when they realize their caricature is wrong. Especially when they start out with a condescending tone like they are talking to their intellectual inferiors. It is quite amusing. Not saying you of course, just in general.

While I don’t support condescension, I do think the view that the majority of pro-lifers that want to force on other people are based on religious norms rather than any sort of objective fact.

I have. Quite easily actually.

I must have missed the refutations!

Alright, one of my biggest objections to forcing pro-life views on women is that no one has the right to weigh that choice for the woman. Only she gets to decide if she wishes to undergo the dangers, risks and burdens of pregnancy for the sake of the unborn.

So refute! Specifically, don’t re-direct - actually refute it.

It appears you missed my point. Perhaps that’s not your fault and I wasn’t clear. Yes, of course science cannot determine personhood as it is not a biological trait or marker that can be identified.

Great you admit that. Then science departs the discussion. So now what basis do you appeal to that I apparently have to recognize?

It’s in the philosophical realm. So if science cannot determine personhood then what makes you think people’s “feelings” can do any better?

Absent some absolute authority, “people’s ‘feelings’” (what we call democracy) is all we’ve got.

So obviously people should not be in the business of doing so.

Again, it’s all we’ve got.
I may not recognize your gods so appeals in their basis have absolutely no weight with me.

The pro abortion rights argument says…

There are way more than one argument. You’ve pigeon-holed your opposition into one narrow view when that doesn’t represent the reality. Bet you can guess which fallacy that is? (Hint: Scarecrow)

 

[Vonsalza]

And that is clearly undoubtedly indeniably indisputably a fallacious argument. Fact, not opinion.

Why is trying to establish personhood at some stage other than conception any more fallacious than your insistence that personhood is established at conception?
Especially as (in America) stillborn children and miscarriages are hardly ever investigated like the death of, say, a 6 year old is routinely investigated? You’re not a full-adult with all the rights and privileges of being so in the US until you’re 21 years old.

So what’s the difference between that and someone with the same attributes who is not born yet.

The mother.

For a dependent human being that’s been born, someone besides its biological mother can care for it.

For a dependent human being that hasn’t, she’s the only one that can do it - and that comes at an enormous cost and risk to her. Some of the effects of pregnancy on the female body are usually permanent and chance of mortality for the mother is starting to creep back up in the US - especially in states like Texas.

The personhood logic in favor of abortion is just as fallacious and flawed as any other.

You’ve not shown why. You’ve just cried “fallacy” and moved on (committing the “fallacy” fallacy yourself, BTW).

Fair question - you recognize that a fallacy of logic and disagreement are separate things, right? Honest question.

I said that the perceived lack of personhood is not an argument in favor of abortion.

It is an argument in favor of “choice” on the part of the mother.

Also, nobody talks about abortion when it comes to a single-celled zygote so that’s in itself is a red herring.

You must be unfamiliar, then, with the Catholic view on oral contraceptives. They talk about it all the time.

That may be true post partum, but it is a non argument when it comes to the right to abort a living human being.

Of course it’s a supporting argument for the right of the mother to choose.
If personhood is progressive, then at what point does the personhood of the unborn trump the mother’s desire to not endure the dangers and risks of pregnancy?

Only if you misunderstood my point which it seems you did.

No, I understand it perfectly. I just don’t share it.

 

[Pattylt]

Im going to address a few thoughts here and I really wanted to quote each argument but, alas, my iPad is the most frustrating tool for the job!

Sbeeo: you still aren’t changing the values that the mother places on a fetus. Even convincing her that it is human and a person is meaningless if she doesn’t value that fetus as at least equal to herself much less more than herself. Science doesn’t matter. How she values the fetus does. I’ve tried to have these conversations with women and it devolves into…My life and situation is more valuable to me than bringing a baby into the world right now. If they value the baby as less, how do convince them to value it more. You seem to think that convincing them of personhood will do this. Many alreasy know it’s a future person, they don’t care!

Joe5859: each of your statements kinda proves my point. Because we as a society place higher values on freedom from slavery, killing toddlers, etc. we have no problem seeing them as morally wrong. Our morals align with our values. (And slavery USED to be moral until we realized that we value freedom from slavery. Now we see it as morally wrong because our values changed)

Until we move society to value a fetus from conception the abortion issue will live and be defended. Most of society feels that since a fetus past 21 weeks is viable outside the womb they don’t object to outlawing at that point (except for the life of the mother because we still value the mother more!). How do you plan to move a secular society to change their value of a fetus with secular arguments?

 

[Sbee0]

Sbeeo: you still aren’t changing the values that the mother places on a fetus. Even convincing her that it is human and a person is meaningless if she doesn’t value that fetus as at least equal to herself much less more than herself. Science doesn’t matter. How she values the fetus does. I’ve tried to have these conversations with women and it devolves into…My life and situation is more valuable to me than bringing a baby into the world right now. If they value the baby as less, how do convince them to value it more. You seem to think that convincing them of personhood will do this. Many alreasy know it’s a future person, they don’t care!

Science comes into play when the argument is made that the unborn child at any stage after conception is “just tissue”, it is not a living human being, is just like a tumor, etc. And of course the classic “it’s MY body”. All of that is very commonly used today to justify the act. Clearly that ignorance is one very major factor where a woman might not value the unborn child/fetus.

Science says all of that is factually incorrect, and thus it is relevant to point it out in such conversations.

The “inconvenience” argument is not a sound one for abortion, as I pointed out earlier. Back to our stowaway.

If someone really understands the act of abortion, that they are killing a living real human being in the act, and they still have no issue with it, then there’s nothing more to debate. I suspect that a lot of people don’t understand it though otherwise you wouldn’t hear the arguments made above at all.

Perceived lack of independent viability is also a non argument for abortion. Conjoined twins, a premature baby or someone who needs a machine to breathe, etc - they are not viable on their own, but it is not an argument for their execution.

 

[Sbee0]

Why is trying to establish personhood at some stage other than conception any more fallacious than your insistence that personhood is established at conception?

That’s an odd choice of words, considering I never “insisted” or even said that at all in this topic. Or at least I’m sure I didn’t. What I said was a human being’s life begins at conception. Why? Science says so. I will lean on science. I like science.

Especially as (in America) stillborn children and miscarriages are hardly ever investigated like the death of, say, a 6 year old is routinely investigated? You’re not a full-adult with all the rights and privileges of being so in the US until you’re 21 years old.

Except for the part that stillborn children and miscarriages have pretty much zilch to do with the intentional act of abortion. And I already refuted the latter talking point from your playbook in my previous post.

The mother.
For a dependent human being that’s been born, someone besides its biological mother can care for it.

My stowaway is happy to disagree with the point that dependency on one single person makes you a non person that may not be worthy of the right to life.

For a dependent human being that hasn’t, she’s the only one that can do it - and that comes at an enormous cost and risk to her. (clipped for space)

Surely you aren’t implying that there aren’t any serious medical risks to abortion, are you?

You’ve not shown why. You’ve just cried “fallacy” and moved on (committing the “fallacy” fallacy yourself, BTW).

Not at all. I already explained why it’s fallacious.

You must be unfamiliar, then, with the Catholic view on oral contraceptives.

I know the church’s view. First, contraception is a red herring when it comes to abortion. The word itself - CONTRA-ception literally means AGAINST conception. There is no human being that is terminated when an oral contraceptive is taken, thus making that point utterly irrelevant. The Church is opposed to it because it thwarts the purpose for which God designed the sexual act - to create life.

That may be true post partum, but it is a non argument when it comes to the right to abort a living human being.

Of course it’s a supporting argument for the right of the mother to choose.

Argumentum non sequitur.

If personhood is progressive, then at what point does the personhood of the unborn trump the mother’s desire to not endure the dangers and risks of pregnancy?

No human’s rights are more important than another’s. The perceived lack of personhood is not a valid argument to support the right to abortion, as shown. I’d rather not repeat things for them to be ignored again and again.

No, I understand it perfectly. I just don’t share it.

Nah, you don’t and it seems you don’t care to. It’s all good. I’m happy to stick to science, reason, logic and facts over “feelings”. Science (and of course religion) condemns abortion. Good enough for me.

Cheers!

 

[Vonsalza]

That’s an odd choice of words, considering I never “insisted” or even said that at all in this topic. Or at least I’m sure I didn’t. What I said was a human being’s life begins at conception. Why? Science says so. I will lean on science. I like science.

Ok, then your main point is irrelevant since we’re not talking about biological human life but rather personhood. I’ll take that as a concession.

Except for the part that stillborn children and miscarriages have pretty much zilch to do with the intentional act of abortion. And I already refuted the latter talking point from your playbook in my previous post.

The treatment of stillborn and miscarried children is direct evidence that the fetus in utero is considered by many to be less “person” as a regular fact.

And you’ve given no such refutation. I’ll consider that another concession.

My stowaway is happy to disagree with the point that dependency on one single person makes you a non person that may not be worthy of the right to life.

When that dependency will almost certainly leave permanent damage and risks death, its reasonable to think that you should have no obligation to save the stowaway. It’s 100% your choice.

Surely you aren’t implying that there aren’t any serious medical risks to abortion, are you?

No medical procedure is risk free. I was aware that 1 in 40,000 die when my oldest daughter had her tonsils removed.
That said, far far far more women have died from childbirth than abortion. And of the women that have died from abortion, the absolutely overwhelming majority of those were from unsafe abortions performed outside a clinical setting because the procedure was illegal.

So in that regard to the mother, legalized abortion is very pro-life.

Not at all. I already explained why it’s fallacious.

Do you didn’t. Care to simply cut-and-paste it so as to prove me wrong?

 

[Vonsalza]

I know the church’s view. First, contraception is a red herring when it comes to abortion. The word itself - CONTRA-ception literally means AGAINST conception. There is no human being that is terminated when an oral contraceptive is taken, thus making that point utterly irrelevant. The Church is opposed to it because it thwarts the purpose for which God designed the sexual act - to create life.

Ok. So you don’t know.

Many Catholics oppose contraception because it also affects the uterine lining. So in theory, a woman could experience what’s called a breakthrough ovulation, which could be then fertilized (creating a zygote) but then fails to attach to the more hostile uterine lining - effectively leading to an abortion in their view.

It’s ok to be wrong sometimes, Sbee0.

Argumentum non sequitur.

Okay, I’m going to start individually calling you on these-

You’re wrong again. A non sequitur is “a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.”

Me: In reality, human beings undergo transitional stages into “personhood” as it pertains to their rights and privileges.
You: That may be true post partum, but it is a non argument when it comes to the right to abort a living human being.
Me: Of course it’s a supporting argument for the right of the mother to choose.
You: Argumentum non sequitur.

The reason it follows is that if we agree that postpartum humans undergo transition stages into personhood then there may be transitional developments to the personhood of the unborn.

It’s implicitly why we mention milestones in fetal development where there’s a heartbeat, where there’s brain activity, when the fetus is developed enough to possibly be viable outside the womb with tremendous technological assistance.

It follows. It follows very well (sequitur being Latin for “it follows”).

No human’s rights are more important than another’s.

Right. Which is why the mother’s right to choose can’t be impeded by the much more limited “rights” of the fetus.

Science (and of course religion) condemns abortion. Good enough for me.

Makes me wonder why the great majority of folks professionally working in the sciences tend to be pro-choice atheists…

 

[Sbee0]

Ok, then your main point is irrelevant since we’re not talking about biological human life but rather personhood. I’ll take that as a concession.

You accused me of saying something I clearly did not say. Your implied apology and admission of defeat on this is accepted, moving on.

The treatment of stillborn and miscarried children is direct evidence that the fetus in utero is considered by many to be less “person” as a regular fact.

Stillborn and miscarriages are not abortion, and as I’ve already said many times, perceived personhood is a non argument for abortion. And besides- what is, isn’t necessarily what should be.

And you’ve given no such refutation. I’ll consider that another concession.

You’d be wrong, but you’re free to believe so as it’s a free country.

When that dependency will almost certainly leave permanent damage and risks death, its reasonable to think that you should have no obligation to save the stowaway. It’s 100% your choice.

I believe what you just said is called fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.

Surely you aren’t implying that there aren’t any serious medical risks to abortion, are you?

No medical procedure is risk free. I was aware that 1 in 40,000 die when my oldest daughter had her tonsils removed.
That said, far far far more women have died from childbirth than abortion.

It is true that many women die from childbirth. There are also plenty studies out there documenting the vast number of deaths within a year after abortion, plus the issues that come with severe depression and suicide, far more than a mother who carried her child to term. One such study mentioned a 350% increase in maternal deaths a year after abortion compared to after childbirth. So clearly it is not the benign safe procedure that your playbook would have you believe. Don’t believe me? Happy reading!

Do you didn’t. Care to simply cut-and-paste it so as to prove me wrong?

Nah it’s ok, you can read for yourself.

 

[Sbee0]

Ok. So you don’t know.
Many Catholics oppose contraception because it also affects the uterine lining.

“Many” huh? Care to cite a stat on that or are you pulling that adjective out of thin air? Your playbook does tend to do that a lot and it really would be more credible if it didn’t.

So in theory, a woman could experience what’s called a breakthrough ovulation, which could be then fertilized (creating a zygote) but then fails to attach to the more hostile uterine lining - effectively leading to an abortion in their view.

Contraception is not deliberate abortion, they are two completely separate things. Nice try on the gotcha thing, but it didn’t work.

It’s ok to be wrong sometimes, Sbee0.

Yes it is, in the occasions where I AM actually wrong.

Argumentum non sequitur.

Okay, I’m going to start individually calling you on these-

You’re wrong again. A non sequitur is “a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.”

Yep.

Me: In reality, human beings undergo transitional stages into “personhood” as it pertains to their rights and privileges.
You: That may be true post partum, but it is a non argument when it comes to the right to abort a living human being.
Me: Of course it’s a supporting argument for the right of the mother to choose.
You: Argumentum non sequitur.
The reason it follows is that if we agree that postpartum humans undergo transition stages into personhood then there may be transitional developments to the personhood of the unborn.

Except premise 1+2 plus your last statement doesn’t connect in any way to the right to choose abortion, premise 3. Hence, argumentum non sequitur.

It’s implicitly why we mention milestones in fetal development where there’s a heartbeat, where there’s brain activity, when the fetus is developed enough to possibly be viable outside the womb with tremendous technological assistance.

The unborn child/fetus is doing exactly what it is programmed to do at that stage of life. It makes them no less human and no more inferior than any one of us.

No human’s rights are more important than another’s.

Right. Which is why the mother’s right to choose can’t be impeded by the much more limited “rights” of the fetus.

Read what I said slower this time.

Makes me wonder why the great majority of folks professionally working in the sciences tend to be pro-choice atheists…

A “great majority” eh? You’re friends with a “great majority” of these folks personally and you know their opinion on this topic? Is there a poll of them that I haven’t seen? Huh. Maybe that’s in your playbook and that’s why I haven’t seen it.

 

[Start]

Can you explain the logical distinction between the following:

You said you were consistent with those views in everything that doesn’t affect you.