Good Pro-Life Arguments

[Vonsalza]

It’s fascinating that you call yourself pro life even though you ingenuously compared an unborn fetus to a tumor.

I try not to espouse my emotions with my analyses - a rare quality, truly. And not one always accomplished.

But they absolutely, objectively have similarities. And I think you’re smart enough to see them.

To me it makes no logical sense whatsoever to be pro life if you really believe that is a valid comparison.

Classic “No True Scotsman” fallacy, there.

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.

You’ll be better at “winning souls” if you realize that your appeal is fundamentally emotional as predicated on your understanding of personhood - and not an appeal to scientific analysis.

You’ll both be and appear more genuine to your audience - making them authentically more receptive to your view. The only guy that thinks you’re being completely secular and scientific, here, is you.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Legally? It’s an act of democracy.

Depends on the government.

That’s true. American bias. apologies.

 

[Start]

You’ll be better at “winning souls” if you realize that your appeal is fundamentally emotional as predicated on your understanding of personhood - and not an appeal to scientific analysis.

Most abortion arguments also rely on emotional appeals.

The only guy that thinks you’re being completely secular

The arguments are secular.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

You’ll be better at “winning souls” if you realize that your appeal is fundamentally emotional as predicated on your understanding of personhood - and not an appeal to scientific analysis.

Most abortion arguments also rely on emotional appeals.

I won’t fight that. Really, that’s true for most all arguments, if we’re dead-honest.

Abortion. Religion. Which brand of peanut butter is the best (the one MY grandma bought!)

 

[Vonsalza]

The arguments are secular.

If by “secular” you mean “crypto-religious”, then you’re 100% right.

 

[Start]

Secular ideology usually has some Christian ideas in it.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

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.

Already did.

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.

Really? So you’d actually throw the stowaway overboard? Huh. Fascinating.

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.

Comparing abortion to miscarriages and stillbirths is a faulty comparison fallacy.

And yes, history especially in the last 150 years in our country has proven that when people attempt determine who is and isn’t a person, the results are tragic.

So who on earth are you or anyone else to put yourself in a position of authority to make that determination?

Also there is no marker to determine “personhood”,

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

So tell that to those who fallaciously say that an unborn child is not a person based on some criteria they made up or just because they say so.

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

They can be based on invalid premises.

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,

You’re using a particular accident - a determination of viability to make an assessment of what is a person. Fallacy, by its very definition.

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.

That’s textbook argumentum ad populum.
And fetal rights come before the courts a lot these days. We’ll see how they evolve in the coming years.

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

Also, a legal lack of personhood is not justification for their death. History has proven that.

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

I was talking about human life. Many on the pro abortion side don’t even think that a fetus is a human. Even you yourself called it a proto-human. Which of course cannot be found in any anthropological textbook. Go figure.

 

[Vonsalza]

Secular ideology usually has some Christian ideas in it.

In the west that’s very true.

 

[Start]

Really? So you’d actually throw the stowaway overboard? Huh. Fascinating.

Don’t make straw mans.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Really? So you’d actually throw the stowaway overboard? Huh. Fascinating.

Don’t make straw mans.

I don’t think I am. Just commenting on the idea that one is not obliged to protect and care for that stowaway in some circumstances. How they are dispensed of is irrelevant, the point is the same.

 

[Start]

Never mind I misread it.

 

[Elf01]

For the record, I’m against slavery. 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.

Just a small edit. Chilling how small.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

It’s fascinating that you call yourself pro life even though you ingenuously compared an unborn fetus to a tumor.

I try not to espouse my emotions with my analyses - a rare quality, truly. And not one always accomplished.

But they absolutely, objectively have similarities. And I think you’re smart enough to see them.

To me it makes no logical sense whatsoever to be pro life if you really believe that is a valid comparison.

Classic “No True Scotsman” fallacy, there.

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.

You’ll be better at “winning souls” if you realize that your appeal is fundamentally emotional as predicated on your understanding of personhood - and not an appeal to scientific analysis.

You’ll both be and appear more genuine to your audience - making them authentically more receptive to your view. The only guy that thinks you’re being completely secular and scientific, here, is you.

I just think it’s fascinating that you call yourself pro life even though you made that comparison. Very odd, to be honest too.

The tumor and the unborn child are about as similar as a baseball and a fish. If you call that “similar” than have at it.

Emotional? Nah. I just like getting in these debates. Surprisingly easy to stump the opposition too, quite often. As I said before, I find that the pro abortion rights side sticks to their talking points way too often without critical and reasonable thought - those are the ones that are quite easy to stump.

 

[Vonsalza]

Already did.

Nope.

Really? So you’d actually throw the stowaway overboard? Huh. Fascinating.

Didn’t say that. I said I wouldn’t save him if it meant certain and enduring harm. I’ll let you guess your fallacy there.

So who on earth are you or anyone else to put yourself in a position of authority to make that determination?

Oh, I don’t. For legal purposes the “We the People” make the determination in the US.

So tell that to those who fallaciously say that an unborn child is not a person based on some criteria they made up or just because they say so.

It also needs to be said to people who “fallaciously” (you’re overusing that word, with spotty accuracy) assume that an unborn child is fully a person.

They can be based on invalid premises.

You mean “unsound” premises, right?

In which case, you have to show them why they’re unsound.
And if the premise is normative, you can’t. Category error.

You’re using a particular accident - a determination of viability to make an assessment of what is a person. Fallacy, by its very definition.

…No, but I think explaining otherwise probably wouldn’t be productive given your tone-shift.

That’s textbook argumentum ad populum.

that wasn’t an argument. So it can’t be. But ok.

Also, a legal lack of personhood is not justification for their death. History has proven that.

No it hasn’t. Vague references to “history” isn’t capable of proving anything other than “you have an opinion”.

Even you yourself called it a proto-human. Which of course cannot be found in any anthropological textbook. Go figure.

Actually… it can. doh
But I’ll give you half-credit. Proto-human is a reference to primitive humans in the early days of near-homosapiens. Not humans in early development. I used it incorrectly.

 

[Start]

Most people won’t use cold logic in the U.S. so it will be easier to use subjective arguments.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

For the record, I’m against slavery. 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.

Just a small edit. Chilling how small.

The red herring is obvious.

That said, changing a poster’s post and maintaining the reference and emblem to them that appears as though they wrote it is dishonest and possibly indicative of poor character and certainly indicative of poor manners.

And I’m reporting it.

 

[Start]

What’s the point of arguing if you are already pro-life?

 

[Vonsalza]

What’s the point of arguing if you are already pro-life?

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

 

[Start]

That’s rhetoric.

 

[Vonsalza]

That’s rhetoric.

I call it “liberty”.