Good Pro-Life Arguments

[Diaconia]

This is the best point to make; I use it more often than any other.

The only reason we are even able to have this discussion is because both our mothers chose life.

God bless those who advocate for the little ones,
Deacon Christopher

PS: Is that St. Kateri in your profile image?

 

[Lee1]

Good pro-life arguments?

Luke 6:31
Do to others as you would have them do to you.

 

[Sbee0]

It’s a scientific fact that human life begins at conception and that a human being exists in the womb in the early stages of the development that God and biology programmed it to have.

Therefore anyone who equates an unborn child to a clump of cells, tonsils, etc is completely wrong. Any arbitrary markers that one may use to decide when exactly the unborn child becomes a human being at an arbitrary point inside the womb can easily be applied to those outside the womb and therefore is logically fallacious.

The key however will be to get agreement that abortion indeed terminates a human life and the facts are on our side. Once they see that, then all their arguments in favor of the right to the procedure completely collapse and it becomes morally indefensible in their eyes.

We shouldn’t judge, but we can educate. There are many pro life resources, even completely secular ones, that should be helpful.

 

[Sbee0]

Abortion is a symptom of society’s failure to support and care for women especially those in need. It is not a band-aid or a cure.

 

[adamvandyck]

PS: Is that St. Kateri in your profile image?

Yes it is! I absolutely love St. Kateri.

 

[Vonsalza]

It’s a scientific fact that human life begins at conception.

Well, it’s a scientific fact that a separate organism begins forming at conception. The components of the zygote were alive before they combined to form such.

Your opposition doesn’t view it as a scientific issue, so your approach is probably just going to further convince those that already agree with you.

It’s an ethical issue. If this new proto-human is dependent on the new mother for survival, is she obligated to sacrifice her body for that survival, even if she doesn’t want it?

That’s not a scientific question.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

It’s a scientific fact that human life begins at conception.

Well, it’s a scientific fact that a separate organism begins forming at conception. The components of the zygote were alive before they combined to form such.

Your opposition doesn’t view it as a scientific issue, so your approach is probably just going to further convince those that already agree with you.

It’s an ethical issue. If this new proto-human is dependent on the new mother for survival, is she obligated to sacrifice her body for that survival, even if she doesn’t want it?

That’s not a scientific question.

The way to respond to that is to use an analogy. A sailor finds a stowaway on his or her ship. The stowaway is depending on that sailor for survival. Is that sailor morally obligated to take care of the stowaway and “sacrifice” their own time, comfort, food etc to do that? I say yes. I don’t think anyone could make a righteous argument for throwing the stowaway overboard because they are an “inconvenience” to the sailor. It is logically fallacious to use these kinds of arguments in favor of abortion rights, as I have just demonstrated, they can easily be applied to those already born.

Conjoined twins also depend on each other for survival. That is a non-argument for saying they are not really human beings because of that dependency.

As for conception, the components that resulted in the new life being form are cells. They begin their life by the process of mitosis or meiosis, not by conception. They have the same DNA as the body they were created in, they do not have the inherent programmed ability to grow through every stage of a human being. The unborn fetus does. These cells are alive, but they are not at all a separate life. This is where the whole “clump of cells” argument completely collapses.

Once the argument that a human being is in the womb is made, there is absolutely no moral justification for abortion. The key is getting the pro choice side to understand that. I doubt many of them would still be in favor of abortion rights once they understand what the act actually does.

 

[Vonsalza]

The way to respond to that is to use an analogy. A sailor finds a stowaway on his or her ship. The stowaway is depending on that sailor for survival.

I think the comparison would fall flat because they’re not reasonably similar sacrifices.

A 9 month pregnancy changes a woman’s body for the rest of her life.

A few weeks at sea where I have to share my food is pretty easily offset when I get to shore and hit the buffet for a couple nights.

Conjoined twins also depend on each other for survival. That is a non-argument for saying they are not really human beings because of that dependency.

I’m not trying to make the case that anything above is non-human.

Conjoined twins didn’t have a choice in their suffering. A pregnant mother does. Does she owe that suffering to the unborn?

There’s no objective answer, there. Especially for people who don’t share your same religious beliefs.

As for conception, the components that resulted in the new life being form are cells.

My only point there was that life begets life. So “life” did not begin at conception, but the creation of a unique organism does.

Only time life “began” was when God pushed some clay together and breathed on it, or some lightening struck some saltwater in some littoral somewhere (if that’s still the leading theory).

This is where the whole “clump of cells” argument completely collapses.

Only because you think so. Until it’s born, a fetus is very similar to a tumor - differing genetic composition from the host it needs and harms in order to survive and grow. A growing clump of cells is exactly what it is. That’s just not ALL it is.

Once the argument that a human being is in the womb is made, there is absolutely no moral justification for abortion. The key is getting the pro choice side to understand that.

But you can only get them to understand that by using argument that employ axioms THAT YOU BOTH SHARE. I think you’re not doing the best job of implementing that.

For many, the value of the life of the developing fetus does not override the value of a woman who wishes to not be saddled with the enormous burden of pregnancy or the even greater burden of motherhood.

For the record, I’m pro-life. But my stance is limited to me personally. I’ll do nothing to push my view on anyone else through legal codification or other means.

 

[Sbee0]

(1/2)

I think the comparison would fall flat because they’re not reasonably similar sacrifices. A 9 month pregnancy changes a woman’s body for the rest of her life. A few weeks at sea where I have to share my food is pretty easily offset when I get to shore and hit the buffet for a couple nights.

It can be very similar. What if you didn’t have enough food for the stowaway? What if it is a lot more than a few weeks at sea? Should you throw the stowaway overboard? I think the argument clearly demonstrates the fallacy of the “inconvenience” argument in favor of abortion.

Another analogy - father and mother with three children. Both lose their jobs and cannot find new ones and the children suddenly become a severe financial inconvenience to the father and mother. The “inconvenience” argument says that it is perfectly ok to execute the children to relieve the “burden”. I don’t think you’ll find many people on either side of the debate to agree with that.

Conjoined twins also depend on each other for survival. That is a non-argument for saying they are not really human beings because of that dependency.

I’m not trying to make the case that anything above is non-human.

I’m showing how you can take the various pro abortion rights arguments and use them logically on those already born, thus making them fallacious and invalid.

There’s no objective answer, there. Especially for people who don’t he your same religious beliefs.

I am actually debating this from a secular perspective. There are many religious arguments on this topic as I’m sure you know.

As for conception, the components that resulted in the new life being form are cells.

My only point there was that life begets life. So “life” did not begin at conception, but the creation of a unique organism does.

As I said before in a similar topic, when I say life begins at conception I’m talking about the life of a human being, a unique entity to the mother and father. It is a scientific fact and indisputable that such life begins at conception. Thus, science completely invalidates the “clump of cells” argument you hear in this debate.

Only because you think so. Until it’s born, a fetus is very similar to a tumor

No similarity whatsoever.

differing genetic composition from the host it needs and harms in order to survive and grow. A growing clump of cells is exactly what it is. That’s just not ALL it is.

A tumor is not a life on its own, nor does it have inherent biological programming to develop as a human being through the unborn stage and through the rest of its life once born.
Those who say abortion is like removing a tumor are completely wrong, period.

 

[Sbee0]

(2/2)

Once the argument that a human being is in the womb is made, there is absolutely no moral justification for abortion. The key is getting the pro choice side to understand that.

But you can only get them to understand that by using argument that employ axioms THAT YOU BOTH SHARE. I think you’re not doing the best job of implementing that.

Therefore I go with science. I like science. Science speaks loudly and clearly, and it does resonate with a lot of people. Whether they choose to accept scientific fact as scientific fact is up to them. But you can try to educate them on what is fact.

For many, the value of the life of the developing fetus does not override the value of a woman who wishes to not be saddled with the enormous burden of pregnancy or the even greater burden of motherhood.

And that’s because they don’t know at all what the act of abortion really does, as I already said. They don’t understand that they are killing a real human being in the act. History has proven that when we try to determine what is a person or a human using our own arbitrary criteria that the results can be tragic. Changing people’s minds on this topic starts there.

 

[Vonsalza]

It can be very similar. What if you didn’t have enough food for the stowaway?.. …I think the argument clearly demonstrates the fallacy of the “inconvenience” argument in favor of abortion.

I’m not familiar with the “inconvenience fallacy”, and I’ve been formally educated on them. Maybe we skipped it…

Perhaps your argument doesn’t sufficiently consider the last damage each child does to the female body. Your sailor would have to incur permanent damage to themselves to make the comparison realistic and then you’d find that maybe a few you’re posing the comparison to would say “Well, if it exposes the sailor to certain and lasting harm, maybe they don’t have an obligation to save the would-be-stowaway”.

Another analogy - father and mother with three children. Both lose their jobs…

Most in your opposition grant suitably more “personhood” to people that are postpartum. The broader society even reflects this somewhat, as I’m not aware of any grand jury inquiries being made into the circumstances behind every miscarriage - which would surely be required if the lost fetus was genuinely entitled to the same rights and protections as everyone born.

I am actually debating this from a secular perspective. There are many religious arguments on this topic as I’m sure you know.

Great. Then as you understand logic, you’ll understand that conclusions based on differing norms will usually differ and no fallacy need be involved.

Your only option at that point is to attack the soundness of their premise. But since it’s normative, there is no attack beyond “I disagree” or “I don’t see it that way”.

It is a scientific fact and indisputable that such life begins at conception. Thus, science completely invalidates the “clump of cells” argument you hear in this debate.

No it doesn’t. At early stages, a “clump of cells” is exactly what a human being is. What’s the record for earliest surviving pre-term delivery? 22 weeks? 21? Before that, “a clump of cells” seems to be a fair descriptor as it’s only capable of survival as a continuing extension of the woman carrying it. Not unlike a tumor.

Therefore I go with science. I like science.

Then as a man of science, you understand fully that it deals exclusively with material and quantifiable phenomena. As the morality of abortion is a value-based judgement, it is outside the dominion of scientific inquiry.

 

[Vonsalza]

And that’s because they don’t know at all what the act of abortion really does, as I already said. They don’t understand that they are killing a real human being in the act.

One of my sisters, sadly, had an abortion. I assure you, she understood that when she did the deed, she knew she was ending the life of something that would have developed into a growing, breathing, functioning human.

She does not think she killed a person. To her, it had no identity, it had no thoughts, it had no heart-beat. It may have been genetically human, but it was not yet a person. “Clump of cells”.

“But Vons! Humanity and personhood are one in the same!”

Many - maybe most - disagree. And even if you complete the impossible and prove that they are, establishing that a woman owes the dangers, lasting harms and tremendous burden of pregnancy to the unborn is something else that you’ll have to “prove” (which you can’t, because it’s normative).

They don’t use your same base-set of axioms in addressing the issue.

 

[Sbee0]

I’m not familiar with the “inconvenience fallacy”, and I’ve been formally educated on them. Maybe we skipped it…

It is not called the inconvenience fallacy, but it is a fallacious argument.

Perhaps your argument doesn’t sufficiently consider the last damage each child does to the female body. Your sailor would have to incur permanent damage to themselves to make the comparison realistic and then you’d find that maybe a few you’re posing the comparison to would say “Well, if it exposes the sailor to certain and lasting harm, maybe they don’t have an obligation to save the would-be-stowaway”.

In the case of the sailor not having sufficient food anymore? Sure, why wouldn’t it cause harm? They’re still morally obligated to protect the stowaway, yes?

The right not to be inconvenienced or to be free from physical hardship in some way does not morally trump the right to life of another human being, which the unborn fetus is.

Most in your opposition grant suitably more “personhood” to people that are postpartum. (clipped for space)

Like I said, history has proven that it is a really bad idea for us to determine who exactly is a “person” by some arbitrary criteria.

Also there is no marker to determine “personhood”, but that doesn’t stop pro abortion rights make themselves the authority over what is a person. I believe going down this road to try and create some marker on what exactly a person is in order to justify the murder of the unborn child has its basis in something called the Failure to Elucidate logical fallacy.

Great. Then as you understand logic, you’ll understand that conclusions based on differing norms will usually differ and no fallacy need be involved.

But if one norm isn’t scientifically sound then it’s a valid to point out the fallacies that use it as their basis.

No it doesn’t. At early stages, a “clump of cells” is exactly what a human being is.

No it isn’t, and my previous post explained why.

What’s the record for earliest surviving pre-term delivery? 22 weeks? 21? Before that, “a clump of cells” seems to be a fair descriptor as it’s only capable of survival as a continuing extension of the woman carrying it. Not unlike a tumor.

I believe that’s called Fallacy of accident. Using dependency as a way to judge an unborn child as not a human being or inferior. The unborn child is functioning exactly the way they are biologically programmed to do so at that stage. From conception it will have an inherent ability to grow and develop through all stages of development. The generic clump of cells does not. Period.

Then as a man of science, you understand fully that it deals exclusively with material and quantifiable phenomena.

Such as when human life begins at conception.

As the morality of abortion is a value-based judgement, it is outside the dominion of scientific inquiry.

See above, as science has made this determination.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

And that’s because they don’t know at all what the act of abortion really does, as I already said. They don’t understand that they are killing a real human being in the act.

One of my sisters, sadly, had an abortion. I assure you, she understood that when she did the deed, she knew she was ending the life of something that would have developed into a growing, breathing, functioning human.

She does not think she killed a person. To her, it had no identity, it had no thoughts, it had no heart-beat. It may have been genetically human, but it was not yet a person. “Clump of cells”.

“But Vons! Humanity and personhood are one in the same!”

Many - maybe most - disagree. And even if you complete the impossible and prove that they are, establishing that a woman owes the dangers, lasting harms and tremendous burden of pregnancy to the unborn is something else that you’ll have to “prove” (which you can’t, because it’s normative).

They don’t use your same base-set of axioms in addressing the issue.

Ok, so perhaps that makes my point then. My whole point is that to change people’s minds on this issue, we must convince them that abortion is the murder of a human life and a person. Pro abortion rights says that the unborn child is abstract and isn’t a human being and/or a person.

All I’m saying is that’s exactly where the conversation must begin and when they are convinced otherwise, you’ll see a lot less people support abortion. As science is on the pro life side, it’s reasonable to think that we have a case to have this conversation.

Going off topic and into the domain of a previous thread - the whole notion of being “pro choice” is also logically fallacious - it is the fallacy of confusing the absolute with the qualified and it is by far the biggest weapon in the narrative that the pro abortion argument has. You are not pro choice, you are pro abortion rights.

 

[Vonsalza]

It is not called the inconvenience fallacy, but it is a fallacious argument.

If you’re going to say so then you’re obligated to show how.

In the case of the sailor not having sufficient food anymore? Sure, why wouldn’t it cause harm? They’re still morally obligated to protect the stowaway, yes?

If doing so will cause certain and enduring harm to the sailor (thus making it comparable to pregnancy)? No, probably not.

Like I said, history has proven that it is a really bad idea for us to determine who exactly is a “person” by some arbitrary criteria.

No it hasn’t. Again, we don’t launch investigations into miscarriages and stillbirths. Per your view, those are deaths absolutely worthy of investigation. Society doesn’t investigate them. Probably rightly.

Also there is no marker to determine “personhood”,

Exactly. Which is why the issue is normative and thus categorically beyond scientific inquiry.

But if one norm isn’t scientifically sound then it’s a valid to point out the fallacies that use it as their basis.

Norms can’t be “scientifically sound” because norms aren’t material, quantifiable phenomena. Again, category error.

I believe that’s called Fallacy of accident. Using dependency as a way to judge an unborn child as not a human being or inferior.

As the rule is determined by earliest surviving pre-term infant, how can there be an exception, as required in your mistaken accusation of fallacy? Anyways,

What you’re missing here is the view that “all humans are entitles to the same treatment, protections and rights from conception to the grave” is not a scientific statement. It’s a normative one. And it’s one that society has never really shared.

Infants dead in-utero are typically not treated the same. There may or may not be a funeral. There almost certainly won’t be an accident investigation or autopsy.

Such as when human life begins at conception.

We’re not talking about biological human life. We’re talking about personhood - having the rights and privileges due a person.

See above, as science has made this determination.

No it hasn’t. It categorically can’t. It’s like asking a man born blind to describe the color red.

 

[Vonsalza]

Ok, so perhaps that makes my point then. My whole point is that to change people’s minds on this issue, we must convince them that abortion is the murder of a human life and a person. Pro abortion rights says that the unborn child is abstract and isn’t a human being and/or a person.

As I’ve identified above, they have some merit in making this statement. In practice, the unborn are “less” people.

All I’m saying is that’s exactly where the conversation must begin…

Oooo. This might be your biggest underlying issue.

The only person you get to determine that for is you. Period. End-of-discussion on that…

You’re not going to tell me how to approach it. You’re not going to tell Jim-Bob down the street how to approach it.

You are not pro choice, you are pro abortion rights.

Me? Personally? I’m pro life.

If my wife and I somehow get pregnant, we’ll carry and birth and raise and love that child.

But I’m not going to tell any women they must do the same.

As an aside, ever heard of a “hasty generalization” in your study of fallacies?

Very related to the “accident” one you kinda reference.

 

[Start]

Who gets to decide what a person is?

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Ok, so perhaps that makes my point then. My whole point is that to change people’s minds on this issue, we must convince them that abortion is the murder of a human life and a person. Pro abortion rights says that the unborn child is abstract and isn’t a human being and/or a person.

As I’ve identified above, they have some merit in making this statement. In practice, the unborn are “less” people.

All I’m saying is that’s exactly where the conversation must begin…

Oooo. This might be your biggest underlying issue.

The only person you get to determine that for is you. Period. End-of-discussion on that…

You’re not going to tell me how to approach it. You’re not going to tell Jim-Bob down the street how to approach it.

You are not pro choice, you are pro abortion rights.

Me? Personally? I’m pro life.

If my wife and I somehow get pregnant, we’ll carry and birth and raise and love that child.

But I’m not going to tell any women they must do the same.

As an aside, ever heard of a “hasty generalization” in your study of fallacies?

Very related to the “accident” one you kinda reference.

It’s fascinating that you call yourself pro life even though you ingenuously compared an unborn fetus to a tumor. To me it makes no logical sense whatsoever to be pro life if you really believe that is a valid comparison. Just as there’s no moral justification for abortion if the unborn child is a human being, the reverse is certainly true if it was the other way around.

Quite fascinating indeed.

As for making this argument - it would be fun to see a poll (and maybe there’s one out there) out of those in favor of abortion rights as to whether they believe a human life begins at conception and whether an unborn child is a person. I suspect it would be heavily tilted in both cases in the negative. So like I said our job begins there.

 

[Vonsalza]

Who gets to decide what a person is?

Individually? I guess the moral authority you appeal to.

Legally? It’s an act of democracy.

 

[Start]

Legally? It’s an act of democracy.

Depends on the government.