L
- Status
S
Start
Guest
I guess it depends on why you are against abortion.
Last edited:
L
laylow
Guest
One comparison (although maybe not a good one) would be someone that is anti-war. They would be against it, but probably wouldn’t want their country not to engage in it if it was necessary. However, they themselves would not be fighting in the war.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
No it doesn’t. It fits perfectly with what I’m replying to. We achieve “personhood” progressively after we are born. It’s no stretch to assume it’s the same before we’re born. It’s thematically consistent and, thus, “follows”.
For pro-choicers, it’s about deciding when the personhood of the fetus overrides the desires of the pregnant woman.
I think what’s occurred is just your refusal or inability to see that I’m not going to argue on your terms. I’m arguing on mine. And the same goes for anyone you care to debate with.
Yes, yes, yes. Anyone who doesn’t confirm your biases is fallacious and flawed.
What other authority is there that we must logically recognize?
No, you just don’t agree with my base premises and you’re not educated enough on formal rhetoric to know that’s not the same as a fallacy.
Sadly for your view Pew’s study on abortion has 90% of democrats favoring choice - and rising.
33% of republican favor choice (brace yourself) - and rising.
You’re crypto-religious and you’re the only one that doesn’t see it in your rhetoric.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Bingo. (10 char max)
S
Sbee0
Guest
Except the problem with that conclusion is that it’s not entirely true. Many - and I would even argue most of those on the pro abortion rights side of the argument tend to be extremely hostile to those on the pro life side. That’s not really being pro choice.
And if Pro choice was really that in a libertarian sense, they would be in favor of choice on EVERYTHING. Including my right to carry a gun in public, etc. We all know most of them are not, that it’s really about choice on one issue only. The name pro choice in that sense is fallacy from confusion of the absolute with the qualified.
This “best of both worlds” stance is also a cowardly stance for politicians to take, but I digress.
S
Start
Guest
Considering the trade off of consequences, the fetus gets to die, while the mother only has to experience the discomforts of pregnancy and also taking care of the child. You also did mention some permanent damage done to the mother, but I’m not sure about what you meant about that.
S
Start
Guest
Can you explain with a bit more depth.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Ask any woman who has had children (that you’re related to, because this is a personal question) “Is your body the same after having a baby as it was before?”Vonsalza:
Considering the trade off of consequences, the fetus gets to die, while the mother only has to experience the discomforts of pregnancy and also taking care of the child. You also did mention some permanent damage done to the mother, but I’m not sure about what you meant about that.
The answer for nearly all women is “H*** no!”
Childbirth, particularly repeat births, dramatically increase a woman’s chances of needing “pelvic support” later in life and I’m reasonably certain I’m speaking with a group of relatively young men who have no idea at all about women’s health issues.
S
Sbee0
Guest
It doesn’t follow in any way. There is no logical fact that takes personhood to “pro choice”. Argumentum non sequitur.Sbee0:
No it doesn’t. It fits perfectly with what I’m replying to. We achieve “personhood” progressively after we are born. It’s no stretch to assume it’s the same before we’re born. It’s thematically consistent and, thus, “follow”.
Neither override each other. The rights of one human do not exceed the rights of another they are equal. If you’re saying that the fetus is NOT a human, then strap your seatbelts on, back to science land we go.
Yes, you certainly are arguing on yours and you’re befuddled that your lines from the playbook aren’t working very well.
Translation: Whoops, SBee got me. Fair enough.Yes, yes, yes. Anyone who doesn’t confirm your biases is fallacious and flawed.
NONE! It is utterly irrelevant to this debate! Hello…McFly…
You’re entitled to your opinion, even if it is completely wrong.
Oooh! Cherry picking is fun! Nah… this is WAY too easy I don’t need to go there.
Aaaaaaaand back to the caricature you go. Hilarious!
Last edited:
L
laylow
Guest
Many of the hostile ones (rightly or wrongly) justify their hostility as retaliation for the opposition or hostility they feel from the other side. Most make the “choice” and chose “life.” They just don’t want that right taken away.
I somewhat understand where you are coming from on this, but that could obviously be turned the other way as well. (pro choice on guns but not abortion) Most gun control advocates want limitation, not complete abolishment. Basically like being against late-term abortions, but not all.
Besides, you and I know, that both of these issues have been so politicized that it has now become an “Us-vs_them” fight, instead of a rational discussion.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
You’re clearly a bastion of rationalism.It doesn’t follow in any way.
Neither override each other.
Yes, you certainly are arguing on yours and you’re befuddled…
Translation: Whoops. He got me.
And I am always too happy to point out the absurdity, the fallacy…
NONE! It is utterly irrelevant to this debate! Hello…McFly…
You’re entitled to your opinion, even if it is completely wrong.
Oooh! Cherry picking is fun! Nah… this is WAY too easy I don’t need to go there.
Aaaaaaaand back to the caricature you go. Hilarious!
Last edited:
S
Sbee0
Guest
There’s nothing to explain. Didn’t you know? All pro lifers must lean on religion in this topic, they are incapable and not intelligent enough to use facts and reason and science. That’s what the playbook says after all!Vonsalza:
Can you explain with a bit more depth.
That’s why it’s so much FUN to see their reaction when they realize how misinformed they really are. Tee hee
V
Vonsalza
Guest
The funny part is you think you’re using science. You really think that, despite science being categorically incapable of making value judgements.
Again, you’re obviously a paragon of rationalism that I just can’t understand.
S
Sbee0
Guest
I suppose that is true, and I loathe hearing stories of real harassment beyond just reaching out to them, and murders at clinics, etc. It’s a bad look. But it is undeniable that there is hostility and it is impossible to be genuinely pro choice if you despise the choice you don’t like so that one say… kicks a pro life woman in the face at a protest.Sbee0:
Many of the hostile ones (rightly or wrongly) justify their hostility as retaliation for the opposition or hostility they feel from the other side. Most make the “choice” and chose “life.” They just don’t want that right taken away.
Fair enough. To me pro choice is a libertarian term. But it’s been used by those on one side of the abortion debate to set the narrative and soften it to make it more “acceptable”. That’s all I’m saying.
Yep. Kind of like red vs blue these days unfortunately.
Last edited:
S
Sbee0
Guest
Or won’t. There’s a subtle but important difference.Sbee0:
The funny part is you think you’re using science. You really think that, despite science being categorically incapable of making value judgements.
Again, you’re obviously a paragon of rationalism that I just can’t understand.
L
laylow
Guest
This is interesting. I’m not sure you know who you are debating with. I have had MANY disagreements with @Vonsalza on this forum, but it would be rare indeed to find him to be “misinformed.” Sometimes we see things differently but always engaging!That’s why it’s so much FUN to see their reaction when they realize how misinformed they really are. Tee hee
To say that comments on this topic are from some “playbook” is either ignorant, dishonest, or completely biased, I’m sorry to say.
S
Start
Guest
What’s the increase of those chances?
I
IsaiahSpirit
Guest
Killing a person has been a solution for societies and agendas since time immemorial.
Also, marginalizing and calling groups not human or sub-human or what have you;
is also common in history.
No one can prove that the child does not exist at the moment of conception.
In life and death situations it is mostly common to give the benefit of the doubt;
for example, CPR.
Reading through this thread it easy to notice how anesthetized attitudes toward
protecting helpless babies who are torn limb from limb, or chemically burned, or otherwise
painfully gruesomely killed.
In their agenda they gloss over or reinvent the psychological damage - increased depression,
and so forth to the mother. And I would imagine those who coerce or give no support to a mother.
And from a Spiritual stand point this makes sense, since we are created in the image and likeness
of God, who would not justify killing a helpless child at any stage of development. And God certainly is not the author of complacency in protecting children legally.
All the rhetoric aside, the Sacredness, God given value and dignity of every human person
gives an attitude of protecting these helpless human persons. The intellectual elite with various
agendas have seduced so many even into complacency. They are good at playing at heart strings,
and are very clever in clouding the culture of death.
All we can do is pray, raise awareness and promote life. Somehow I think this and other things
will take an act of God to bring about lasting change; but pro humankind laws legalized choice
to kill helpless human beings have shown a lot of ‘ugliness’ recently turning some off.
This helps the Sacredness of Life.
Also, marginalizing and calling groups not human or sub-human or what have you;
is also common in history.
No one can prove that the child does not exist at the moment of conception.
In life and death situations it is mostly common to give the benefit of the doubt;
for example, CPR.
Reading through this thread it easy to notice how anesthetized attitudes toward
protecting helpless babies who are torn limb from limb, or chemically burned, or otherwise
painfully gruesomely killed.
In their agenda they gloss over or reinvent the psychological damage - increased depression,
and so forth to the mother. And I would imagine those who coerce or give no support to a mother.
And from a Spiritual stand point this makes sense, since we are created in the image and likeness
of God, who would not justify killing a helpless child at any stage of development. And God certainly is not the author of complacency in protecting children legally.
All the rhetoric aside, the Sacredness, God given value and dignity of every human person
gives an attitude of protecting these helpless human persons. The intellectual elite with various
agendas have seduced so many even into complacency. They are good at playing at heart strings,
and are very clever in clouding the culture of death.
All we can do is pray, raise awareness and promote life. Somehow I think this and other things
will take an act of God to bring about lasting change; but pro humankind laws legalized choice
to kill helpless human beings have shown a lot of ‘ugliness’ recently turning some off.
This helps the Sacredness of Life.
Last edited:
S
Sbee0
Guest
By misinformed I’m referring to the incessant and obnoxious insistence that “oooh you must be leaning on yer religion!” when anyone with a brain and can read knows that is not the case. I already know that faith arguments are not productive in this discussion with those who do not share it.Sbee0:
This is interesting. I’m not sure you know who you are debating with. I have had MANY disagreements with @Vonsalza on this forum, but it would be rare indeed to find him to be “misinformed.” Sometimes we see things differently but always engaging!That’s why it’s so much FUN to see their reaction when they realize how misinformed they really are. Tee hee
To say that comments on this topic are from some “playbook” is either ignorant, dishonest, or completely biased, I’m sorry to say.
It’s indeed like a caricature where supposedly all pro lifers have to lean on their religion in any such discussion and they don’t know enough to do otherwise. It’s comical, that’s why I like to make fun of it, and will continue to do so because I can.
- Status