Good Pro-Life Arguments

[Start]

I meant what Elf did.

 

[Sbee0]

Nope.

I’m afraid so.

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 in other words yes you would dispense of the stowaway. How you’d do it is irrelevant. Fascinating though.

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.

The courts have been completely wrong before on personhood. See Dred Scott V Sandford. What is, is not necessarily what should be. People should not be in the business of making that determination, it has been proven over and over again.

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.

Except those who make that argument don’t try to figure out in some convoluted way when personhood begins so it fits their truth.

You mean “unsound” premises, right?

Tomayto, tomahto.

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.

Nah, it’s quite all right, I’ll take this as a confirmation that that’s exactly what you’re doing. Fair enough.

That’s textbook argumentum ad populum.

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

Actually it was. Bazinga!

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

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

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.

It’s not what you meant originally and if you did then it’s completely wrong anyway. Nice try though.

I must admit, your attempts at playing gotcha are getting rather amusing.

 

[Vonsalza]

I meant what Elf did.

Then do it in a way that doesn’t dishonestly appear like I typed it.

 

[Start]

She said it was edited.

 

[Vonsalza]

I must admit, your attempts at playing gotcha are getting rather amusing.

Nice chat.

Good luck with the normative “science”.

 

[Elf01]

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.

I think my post makes it clear that they are not your words. I do think it’s chilling how little I changed and the quote was to show that. It may be good for you to reflect on why you’re so upset about it.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

I must admit, your attempts at playing gotcha are getting rather amusing.

Nice chat.

Good luck with the normative “science”.

You too. Nice chat. Funny what happens when you run into an informed perspective.

 

[Sbee0]

Elf01:

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.

No it wasn’t at all, and it wasn’t hard to see the context.
Chill dude.

 

[Start]

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

Does this go for all things?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

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

Does this go for all things?

All things that don’t directly affect me, sure.

 

[Start]

Then why did you have objections about the slavery thing that Elf did?

 

[Vonsalza]

Then why are you so mad about the slavery thing?

Because the words that follow to the right of my Icon and name should always be mine - as a matter of common courtesy on a public forum.

Fun part’s over. Have a good one, folks.

 

[Elf01]

All things that don’t directly affect me, sure.

If your mother had aborted you would that have directly affected you?

 

[Sbee0]

Then why did you have objections about the slavery thing?

I will say (and I don’t mean to turn this into the other thread) it is a common line for many “Catholic” politicians who claim they are personally pro life but they wouldn’t force it on others. There is no such thing in reality. At least politicians who support abortion are being honest about their views, where these people are not. This just a disingenuous way to say they are in favor of abortion rights but they want “credit” from more conservative-leaning voters. It’s nothing more than a disingenuous tactic to win votes from them.

And like I said, those in favor of abortion rights are not “pro choice” at all. They are pro abortion rights. For one thing, many of those in favor of abortion rights are extremely hostile to those who disagree. See the guy that kicked a pro life woman at a protest. That’s not being pro choice at all. And if they were really pro choice they would be pro choice on EVERYTHING. Including my right to drink and drive, etc. It is admittedly a very powerful weapon in the public narrative and makes the idea that you support abortion more palpable for some people.

 

[Elf01]

Because the words that follow to the right of my Icon and name should always be mine - as a matter of common courtesy on a public forum.

I highlighted where I’d changed.

 

[Vonsalza]

You too. Nice chat. Funny what happens when you run into an informed perspective.

Wanted to touch in this -

I wouldn’t call your perspective “informed” nearly as much as I would “emotionally triumphalist”.
Examples:

Nah, it’s quite all right, I’ll take this as a confirmation that that’s exactly what you’re doing. Fair enough.

Actually it was. Bazinga!

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

I must admit, your attempts at playing gotcha are getting rather amusing.

If you want to at least look like you hold the more rational position, you need to present yourself as cool, calm and collected as you possibly can and absolutely avoid obvious triumphalisms like those immediately above.

And on being rational, let’s discuss that -

Statements aren’t arguments. They’re statements. As such, they can’t be fallacious - because fallacies describe faulty structure within arguments. One example:

I said:
“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.”

You responded:
That’s textbook argumentum ad populum.

Okay, there’s no ad populum because I didn’t argue anything being true on the basis of popularity. I simply said (correctly) that science can’t make normative statements (it only makes empirical ones). And that society has never consistently held your view.

Those are statements. They’re not arguments. Now, you can deny them as being true. But calling “fallacy” just means that the caller doesn’t really know how arguments work.

Another quick point:
You: They can be based on invalid premises.
Me: You mean “unsound” premises, right?
You: Tomayto, tomahto.

Validity, again, describes the structure of the argument - the mathematical operation of it using boolean operators.
Soundness describes the truth of the underlying premises.

These are different things and if you ever take Intro to Logic or something similarly titled, they’ll be covered in the first week because they’re fundamental to constructing arguments.

---

Offered because you like arguing and when I was much younger I did too. So learn to do it correctly. If you have to pull up a tab on your browser to attempt to label possible fallacies, I recommend you don’t declare them, if for no other reason than the “fallacy” fallacy which is, basically, “I don’t have to consider my opponent’s argument because I think they’ve committed a fallacy”.

I know 99% of the folks here aren’t going to know the difference when you misuse this stuff because their educations didn’t cover it. But to the few who did, we can tell when someone doesn’t really know what they’re talking about. So learn to argue well.

 

[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. I know the playbook from your side of the argument a lot better than you’d like to think and yes I am very familiar with arguing from logic and what fallacious arguments are. No tabs necessary I assure you.

I do think it’s comical you’d accuse me of being “crypto religious” after you see my secular arguments on this topic and then claim I was the one being emotional. LOL. I suspect it’s most likely because your playbook says that we pro lifers don’t know how to argue otherwise.

So funny how it’s always based on a caricature and not reality. Such is the pro abortion rights playbook…talking point after talking point and that’s why they tend to crumble more often than not when such points are challenged.

Cheers!

 

[Vonsalza]

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.

 

[Pattylt]

First, I am anti abortion. I am also secular, not any religion. I just want to make a few observations to the recent comments which have been interesting.
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. 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. It’s a harsh reality and I had to wrestle with it (no, no abortion for me).

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.

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

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

If we lived in the Handmaid’s Tale world where pregnancy was extremely rare then everyone’s view of abortion would quickly change because the value of those babies lives would change. The problem is to get people’s values about life in the womb to change while we still get pregnant quite easily (excepting those struggling with infertility). And, believe it or not, society is slowly changing in their attitude and the value they place on the fetus.

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.

 

[KathleenLM]

When I was a young woman, and not understanding or practicing my faith, I thought I was “pro-choice”. What brought me back to the Church was a Director of Religious Ed who I actually bumped into in a church parking lot. We wound up in a long conversation and she asked me if I thought I understood the Catholic teachings. I responded that I had 16 years of Catholic education. She responded “That’s not what I asked you” and I had to admit that I truly did NOT understand what was behind the Church’s teachings that I thought I had so many disagreements with. So she then asked “How can you leave something if you don’t understand it to begin with?”

That encounter 35 years ago let me to a Catholic Bible Study. We studied Romans for 10 months- starting on page 1, word 1. Within the first month, I knew my views on abortion were formed strictly by society. By the second month, I realized that, while studying Jesus and getting to know Him, that He would NOT be escorting women into abortion clinics. That was what brought me around - recognizing that if I am truly trying to live a Christian life and truly “follow” HIm, I had to admit that my view about abortion was . . . dead wrong.