Good Pro-Life Arguments

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

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!

You’re clearly a bastion of rationalism.

Translation: Yep. I got nothin.

Alrighty then.

Nice chatting.

 

[Vonsalza]

What’s the increase of those chances?

Vaginal childbirth and pelvic floor disorders - Vaginal Childbirth and Pelvic Floor Disorders
“Stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse are strongly associated with vaginal childbirth and parity. …
The term ‘pelvic floor disorders’ (PFDs) refers to stress urinary incontinence, overactive bladder syndrome, pelvic organ prolapse and fecal incontinence.”

Read away.

 

[Start]

To say that comments on this topic are from some “playbook” is either ignorant, dishonest, or completely biased, I’m sorry to say.

I’m gonna have to say the same thing about the apparent use of religious values.

 

[laylow]

I’m gonna have to say the same thing about the apparent use of religious values.

I’m not sure what you mean by that. Actually I think I know now, and yes, on the surface you have a bit of a point. But it appears there is more digging to do.

 

[Vonsalza]

Start:

What’s the increase of those chances?

Vaginal childbirth and pelvic floor disorders - Vaginal Childbirth and Pelvic Floor Disorders
“Stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse are strongly associated with vaginal childbirth and parity. …
The term ‘pelvic floor disorders’ (PFDs) refers to stress urinary incontinence, overactive bladder syndrome, pelvic organ prolapse and fecal incontinence.”

Read away.

Sorry, link correction.

 

[laylow]

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.

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.

I don’t know that he was using it as a caricature. It appeared to me that he sensed some religious bias and emotion creeping into the statements. If you don’t agree, you need to get further explanation as to what he meant.

If you accuse him of using “caricature”, why would you counter by doing the same thing? That would appear to be Trump-like, grade-school tactics. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Vonsalza]

laylow:

To say that comments on this topic are from some “playbook” is either ignorant, dishonest, or completely biased, I’m sorry to say.

I’m gonna have to say the same thing about the apparent use of religious values.

The basis for it is that the argument offers no basis for why full rights and privileges of personhood begins at conception.

It merely offers that per biological definition, a genetically distinct organism begins to form at conception… and then that’s it. The implicit “therefore it’s fully a person” is ideologically assumed as part of the argument.

Which is always a mistake, by the way. You never hide premises/conclusions and when someone does it reeks of ideology, inviting accusations of cryto-religion.

Science can’t tell us when it’s a person. That’s a value judgement. Science can only tell us when it the organism begins formation, how it forms, so on. Empirical details, not values.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

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.

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.

I don’t know that he was using it as a caricature. It appeared to me that he sensed some religious bias and emotion creeping into the statements. If you don’t agree, you need to get further explanation as to what he meant.

If you accuse him of using “caricature”, why would you counter by doing the same thing? That would appear to be Trump-like, grade-school tactics. Just my 2 cents.

I don’t think I am. I am simply shredding the obnoxious notion that a pro lifer is incapable of arguing this topic without going to faith arguments (which are not productive, for reasons already stated). It’s a caricature, no different than a Democrat saying that Republicans hate the poor, hate women, etc. or a Republican saying Democrats are communists who hate religion.

As for emotion…who hasn’t argued this without it?

 

[Start]

We can use secular values and arrive to a similar conclusion.

 

[Vonsalza]

We can use secular values and arrive to a similar conclusion.

I genuinely doubt you can as “secular values” is nebulous at best.

At least the god-based argument can be clearly made. “Secular values” can and do vary so your quest to find something objective with which to root your claim will always be difficult at best.

There’s just no objective reason why a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose without some sort of appeal to authority - be it god, the State, whatever.

And let’s be completely clear - your ultimate reason for trying to do this is very likely religiously motivated. You just want to shed obvious theistic references. Classic crypto-religion by definition.

 

[Start]

There’s just no objective reason why a women shouldn’t have the right to choose

Except for physical attributes, hardly anything is objective.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

objective reason

Except for physical attributes, hardly anything is objective.

I’m glad you realize this.

If you apply this to the pro-life/pro-choice debate, you draw the correct conclusion that, secularly, there is no objective answer.

 

[Start]

That means there is no objective reason why she should have the right to choose.

 

[Vonsalza]

That means there is no objective reason why she should have the right to choose.

Because why should she not?

Absent some authority, we default to liberty.

 

[Start]

Absent some authority, we default to liberty.

That probably also needs to have an objective reason.

Because why should she not?

I don’t how you feel about proving a negative.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Absent some authority, we default to liberty.

That probably also needs to have an objective reason.

I think it serves the function of the null value. Liberty is the default unless there’s a good reason it should be limited.

 

[Start]

I’m not sure if that’s truly objective.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’m not sure if that’s truly objective.

Liberty is the best default you have when there’s no objective thing that you should or should not do. It is the best behavioral equivalent to the philosophical null of “undefined” that I can come up with.

Barring a rule one way or another, you get to pick.

If you think they should have to act in a particular way, make your argument.

 

[Start]

Liberty allows me to do whatever I can possibly do, so it isn’t the best of ideas.

 

[Vonsalza]

It’s not unlimited. It’s just the default. We make exceptions to liberty in secular society called law.

For example, my liberty to carry a fully automatic weapon is severely curtailed.