Good Pro-Life Arguments

[Start]

Then it will be easy to just appeal to the authorities that the fetus has rights and then everyone is bound.

 

[Vonsalza]

If you can get most Americans to agree with you and vote in that’s exactly what will happen.

 

[Start]

Is that how Roe v. Wade worked?

 

[Vonsalza]

Roe v Wade affirmed Liberty.

 

[Start]

That might be an oversimplification of it. But I’m interested if a majority of Americans supported it or if it was only the court.

 

[Vonsalza]

That might be an oversimplification of it. But I’m interested if a majority of Americans supported it or if it was only the court.

I’d guess that most Americans probably didn’t support it at the time. But the 14th amendment protected the exercise of it.

It’s still not beyond the reach of the populace though - the constitution can be changed.

 

[QwertyGirl]

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.

Pro-Choice people can be hostile to Pro-Life people, but only because the Pro-Life people want to take the choice away from everyone. Pro-Choice people don’t care that Pro-Life people advocate for carrying all pregnancies to term. They ar fine with that. They are not OK with Pro-Life people attempting to take the abiity to choose away from everyone.

Pro-Choice people, are pro-choice when it comes to abortion. They don’t have to be for choice in every regard. Not being so doesn’t diminish the validity of their stance with regards to abortion. I don’t even know what you mean by that. Do you mean they have to let each family member choose what each one will have for dinner each night? Do you mean they have to be fully supportive of the shoplifter choosing to steal? I think not. It isn’t a contradiction in any sense. That is nonsense.

 

[Start]

I think not. It isn’t a contradiction in any sense. That is nonsense.

I guess that it also applies to Pro-Life people.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

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.

Pro-Choice people can be hostile to Pro-Life people, but only because the Pro-Life people want to take the choice away from everyone. Pro-Choice people don’t care that Pro-Life people advocate for carrying all pregnancies to term. They ar fine with that. They are not OK with Pro-Life people attempting to take the abiity to choose away from everyone.

Pro-Choice people, are pro-choice when it comes to abortion. They don’t have to be for choice in every regard. Not being so doesn’t diminish the validity of their stance with regards to abortion. I don’t even know what you mean by that. Do you mean they have to let each family member choose what each one will have for dinner each night? Do you mean they have to be fully supportive of the shoplifter choosing to steal? I think not. It isn’t a contradiction in any sense. That is nonsense.

You are pro abortion rights. Not pro choice. The latter is a term used by your side to soften the act of abortion as part of the narrative and make it more palpable for the general public to support it. I refuse to acknowledge it as a legit metaphor for being pro abortion rights.

That is, unless you are a libertarian and you support my right to choose anything I want even if you don’t like it.

Otherwise don’t be disingenuous and call it like it is. And no, those on your side who are hostile to pro lifers are not pro choice. They are pro abortion and anti those who disagree with them. Period.

 

[Vonsalza]

I think you’re absolutely right. Pro lifers are the ones attempting to force their views upon other people. Folks who advocate for choice do no such thing. That’s the nature of choice - liberty.

Under the current pro choice scheme, pro lifers are free to be as pro life as they want. Can even hang a flag outside their house for it, if there is one.

 

[laylow]

Otherwise don’t be disingenuous and call it like it is. And no, those on your side who are hostile to pro lifers are not pro choice. They are pro abortion and anti those who disagree with them. Period.

Actually, you have just heard 2 people in this thread state they are pro choice and not pro abortion. I also stated that this is the stance by the majority of pro choice people. Your reluctance to accept this as reality from people telling it to you directly reeks of stubborn bias as to create a chasm between the 2 sides.

Although only one example, I saw this attitude most at my former Catholic church, which appears to give at least a bit of credence to @Vonsalza s claim of cryto-religious sentiments. It very much sounds as though you are “anti those who disagree with them” as well, so pot meet kettle.

 

[Vonsalza]

Sbee0:

Otherwise don’t be disingenuous and call it like it is. And no, those on your side who are hostile to pro lifers are not pro choice. They are pro abortion and anti those who disagree with them. Period.

Actually, you have just heard 2 people in this thread state they are pro choice and not pro abortion. I also stated that this is the stance by the majority of pro choice people.

Bingo. But zealotry either cannot or will not distinguish between the two.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Otherwise don’t be disingenuous and call it like it is. And no, those on your side who are hostile to pro lifers are not pro choice. They are pro abortion and anti those who disagree with them. Period.

Actually, you have just heard 2 people in this thread state they are pro choice and not pro abortion. I also stated that this is the stance by the majority of pro choice people. Your reluctance to accept this as reality from people telling it to you directly reeks of stubborn bias as to create a chasm between the 2 sides.

Although only one example, I saw this attitude most at my former Catholic church, which appears to give at least a bit of credence to @Vonsalza s claim of cryto-religious sentiments. It very much sounds as though you are “anti those who disagree with them” as well, so pot meet kettle.

I’m not anti those who disagree with me. I’m referring to the small segment of those who are inclined to kick a woman in the face for being pro life. Surely you agree that the label pro choice isn’t really applicable as they are not so at all.

And I meant and have been saying quite frequently pro abortion rights . Very odd that the last word is getting ignored. If I didn’t say the word rights then it was implied. I know that the overwhelming majority think abortion is detestable and thus nobody is actually pro abortion.

The idea the pro lifers have nothing but their religious arguments to lean on which is extremely prevalent on the pro abortion rights side - mixed in with the usual chorus that atheists must the superior intellects and I’ve seen it in this very topic- they are false and quite tiresome, hence my reaction.

 

[Sbee0]

I think you’re absolutely right. Pro lifers are the ones attempting to force their views upon other people. Folks who advocate for choice do no such thing. That’s the nature of choice - liberty.

Under the current pro choice scheme, pro lifers are free to be as pro life as they want. Can even hang a flag outside their house for it, if there is one.

Yes the pro lifer who kicked a woman in the face was trying to force his views on women.

Oh wait silly me I got that backwards.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I think you’re absolutely right. Pro lifers are the ones attempting to force their views upon other people. Folks who advocate for choice do no such thing. That’s the nature of choice - liberty.

Under the current pro choice scheme, pro lifers are free to be as pro life as they want. Can even hang a flag outside their house for it, if there is one.

Yes the pro lifer who kicked a woman in the face was trying to force his views on women.

Oh wait silly me I got that backwards.

In your study of logic, you must have skipped anecdotes as well…

The violence goes both ways and in all cases it is deplorable. No excuse for it.

But fact of the matter remains, the pro-choice segment isn’t trying to force the pro-life segment to do anything. They can both rule their homes as they see fit.

No so with the pro-life segment. They’re trying to destroy a woman’s right to choose in what is always a difficult and tragedy-stuffed situation. Not good. Not free.

At least we can agree, isn’t it great that abortion in America is either at or near an all-time low? With the success and proliferation of reliable artificial birth control, those difficult situations that can end in abortion are avoided. A win for all sides.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Vonsalza:

I think you’re absolutely right. Pro lifers are the ones attempting to force their views upon other people. Folks who advocate for choice do no such thing. That’s the nature of choice - liberty.

Under the current pro choice scheme, pro lifers are free to be as pro life as they want. Can even hang a flag outside their house for it, if there is one.

Yes the pro lifer who kicked a woman in the face was trying to force his views on women.

Oh wait silly me I got that backwards.

In your study of logic, you must have skipped anecdotes as well…

The violence goes both ways and in all cases it is deplorable. No excuse for it.

But fact of the matter remains, the pro-choice segment isn’t trying to force the pro-life segment to do anything. They can both rule their homes as they see fit.

No so with the pro-life segment. They’re trying to destroy a woman’s right to choose in what is always a difficult and tragedy-stuffed situation. Not good. Not free.

At least we can agree, isn’t it great that abortion in America is either at or near an all-time low? With the success and proliferation of reliable artificial birth control, those difficult situations that can end in abortion are avoided. A win for all sides.

Nope I’m very well versed in that, as demonstrated.

And that’s not quite true. Nobody is trying to destroy a right to choose. You will see in the coming years that nobody is going to attempt to overturn R vs W.

As I’ve said, the goal of pro lifers is to educate and inform on the matter - and science is happily quite persuasive- so people hopefully are much more inclined to make a different choice. That’s it. And if in the end those who compare an unborn child/fetus to “just some tissue” etc are reduced to a tiny statistically insignificant minority - we did our job.

And it’s also not quite true that pro “choicers”- I’ll use that term as much as I detest it- aren’t forcing their views on pro lifers. For one thing, in Canada there is the liberal government there forces those seeking a summer jobs grant to attest that they support the governments liberal view on reproductive rights otherwise grant denied. Such a thing is probably unconstitutional here but traces of it are here like the conversations around taxation and churches.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

I’ve noticed many pro-choice or pro-abortion rights people impose their own standards of judgement, which cannot be infallible, on what gives a human “personhood” and somehow you need to be this “person” to have the right to live, merely being a human being isn’t good enough. It’s a very dangerous mindset, not to mention anti-science. It’s like being a climate change denier on steroids because it’s human life we are talking about. The bottom line is that we cannot KNOW the status of “personhood” or if it’s “a real baby” in someone’s estimation, just by looking. It’s been proven that by 10 weeks gestation a baby is able to feel pain, for instance. Fingers and toes are developed by 8 weeks, even. Honestly I don’t think that anything short of God showing someone personally how he knows us while we are the womb would change too many people’s minds. People don’t care, it’s about convenience and sexual freedom. Politicians in our country have voted against a law banning abortion at 20 weeks, even, when 21 weekers can survive. We have a radical culture of death, worse than any societies that have existed in the past.

 

[Sbee0]

Honestly I’m not a fan at all of those graphic signs on the streets - and you all know what I’m referring to. I know people personally who are completely repulsed by them and it’s so hard to reach out to people who are already turned off. We should get them to listen, be engaged and buy in first before they see anything like that.

 

[Vonsalza]

Nope I’m very well versed in that, as demonstrated.

Ok. Well. That was an anecdote, which is a no-no for good rhetoric. Based on, you know, the actually extant rules to this stuff that you can read all about in your intro to philosophical logic textbooks. Which you seem to suggest you’ve covered.

And that’s not quite true. Nobody is trying to destroy a right to choose. You will see in the coming years that nobody is going to attempt to overturn R vs W.

Great. Then let’s call it settled and move on to other things that are still “in the air”. How do you feel about, say, immigration policy?

As I’ve said, the goal of pro lifers is to educate and inform on the matter…

Wish that were true. Most every pro-lifer on these forums wants to overturn Roe.

• and science is happily quite persuasive-

No, it obviously isn’t because “personhood” is not a scientific concept.

And if in the end those who compare an unborn child/fetus to “just some tissue” etc are reduced to a tiny statistically insignificant minority - we did our job.

I think the intrinsic goal of being “pro-life” is fewer deaths - like abortion. And we’re getting that done. In spades. Now, if we can just get out of these pointless, unending wars in the middle east…

And it’s also not quite true that pro “choicers”- I’ll use that term as much as I detest it- aren’t forcing their views on pro lifers.

How can you “force” liberty on someone? Serious question. It’s what they naturally have if left alone. And choice is ultimately about liberty.

For one thing, in Canada…

I’m not going to answer for the government of Canada.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’ve noticed many pro-choice or pro-abortion rights people impose their own standards of judgement, which cannot be infallible, on what gives a human “personhood” and somehow you need to be this “person” to have the right to live, merely being a human being isn’t good enough.

Gently and respectfully, you’re doing the very same thing. And that’s fine.
It should be fine that we get to do the same.

It’s a very dangerous mindset, not to mention anti-science.

Science can’t define “personhood”. It’s not a scientific concept. Science tells us when you first genetically form, how you develop in utero, how you’re born, how you develop postpartum… you get the picture.

But when you become a “person” isn’t covered by science. In the US, you don’t have all rights and privileges due an adult until you’re 21 years old - 35 if you include “the right to run for president”.

The bottom line is that we cannot KNOW the status of “personhood” or if it’s “a real baby” in someone’s estimation, just by looking.

I largely agree. Which is why we can’t force anyone to abide by your rules or my rules. They get to choose themselves.

People don’t care, it’s about convenience and sexual freedom.

Gently and respectfully, most abortions are done by women in their 30s who already have children and feel they’re overwhelmed and can’t support anymore.

We have a radical culture of death, worse than any societies that have existed in the past.

You might be happy to know that we’re either at or near an all-time low for abortion procedures being done. Isn’t that great?