How to re-educate so that people will understand about abortion?

[WillieWonka]

“2. I believe it is incumbent upon you to “think of some right [Limerick has] that does not impose a balancing obligation on someone else.” I will not argue your position for you.”

I don’t know any. That’s why I asked. I say there aren’t any rights which do not imply a corresponding obligation on someone else. Maybe someone knows one? What specific right does not entail an obligation on someone else?

 

[kesa82]

Making an inflammatory statement about ( whoever ) without any proof, citations, or qualifying language on the grouping ( more acurrately ; whoever ) is a slur.

You made an inflammatory statement about me ? No.
— you imply.
Which, to my mind, is usually worse. Implications and inferences are hard to address or pin down, which is often why they are used instead of simple declarative statements.

If you think that hatred and bigotry is a dead horse you are sadly mistaken.

The trouble with the word “bigotry” is it is like the word "neurotic ". It is such a loose term that it basically applies to everyone, to anyone.
So , like a ----psychology major — once wrote, to say that someone is neurotic is really to say no more than to say someone is blue eyed.
It applies to everyone or anyone,
BUT it is always used specifically , it targets individually.
It’s a general-purpose slur , without appearing to be one, it introduces a difference where there is no difference.
As commonly used now it is used to imply that if someone does not invite certain people home to dinner their motivation is malice, that they may even be a potential murderer.
Absurd. None of us invites everyone home to dinner.
And I do dare to venture to say that *most * of the time who we like and who we reject has nothing whatever to do with principle, reason, or justice.
We like the way someone parts their hair, it pleases us, so they get an invitation.
We don’t like the way someone parts their hair, it irritates us, so they are not invited.

Indeed ! In my experience it is those who most doggedly assert that their motives are strictly about principle, justice, and reason, who are the coldest, most fanatically bigoted.
The only people they invite home to dinner are carbon copies of themselves, and Yes-men.

I’m bigoted towards college graduates?
I praise and encourage my girlfriends goal of getting a college degree every chance I get, I sent my sister to college, so I suppose they would consider that a strange implication.
But that’s beside the point isn’t it ? It’s virtually impossible to disprove a negative.

So I’m on the slippery slope to putting college graduates in ovens?

No, you don’ t say that . Such a statement would appear self-evidently ridiculous.
But if not that, then what are you saying?

Just stating the truth as I see it. Most people don’t realize that plumbers have to be able to do geometry and algebra in their heads to properly lay pipe. Not only is it a noble profession, it is an intellectual pursuit as well.

It appears you balk at showing kindness to this particular plumber even when it would cost you nothing.
I thank you for the compliment, to which you respond?
" Just stating the truth as I see it"
Deliberately cold, hold-at-arms-length , so it appears to this observer.

" Gun control is hitting your target. "

Am I to conclude from this statement that you wish to shoot people for fun?


You played dirty pool, you hit below the belt, and you want to gloss over that.
Pick apart my grammar or sentence structure when you know your own leaves a lot to be desired.
That’s what I think, and because of it I will not back down one iota.

This had nothing to do with half a sentence, it has something to do with you.

 

[fix]

Here’s an old thought experiment that’s been around forever. You are in a burning building. You can rescue a one-year-old baby or a cooler with 100 human embryos. You can’t rescue both, and you are certain the one you do not rescue will perish. Do you rescue the one-year-old or the embryos? Who here would rescue the embryos and let the one-year-old cook?

What answer do you seek and what point does it make? What if you have the mother of 7 and a drug addicted homeless 85 year old man in the barn? Does the answer mean one life is less valuable or that we are free to kill based on perceived utility?

 

[WillieWonka]

What answer do you seek and what point does it make? What if you have the mother of 7 and a drug addicted homeless 85 year old man in the barn? Does the answer mean one life is less valuable or that we are free to kill based on perceived utility?

I seek your answer to the question. I don’t know what it is. What is it? I’d take the one-year-old. How about you?

I have no idea what the answer means until you tell me. My answer means I see the life of the 100 frozen embryos as having less value than the single one-year-old. What’s your answer, and what does it mean?

This is an interesting exercise. Pro-choice folks almost always choose the one-year-old. Most anti-abortion folks won’t answer the question.

I think the point the exercise makes is that regardless of our professed intellectual beliefs, we have a basic instinct to regard the one-year-old as more valuable than the embryos. But, who knows? Maybe this time we will see something different in the exercise.

So, who is willing to step up to the plate and provide an answer? One-year-old or the cooler of 100 embryos? Quick. The building is on fire.

 

[fix]

I seek your answer to the question. I don’t know what it is. What is it? I’d take the one-year-old. How about you?

I have no idea what the answer means until you tell me. My answer means I see the life of the 100 frozen embryos as having less value than the single one-year-old. What’s your answer, and what does it mean?

This is an interesting exercise. Pro-choice folks almost always choose the one-year-old. Most anti-abortion folks won’t answer the question.

I think the point the exercise makes is that regardless of our professed intellectual beliefs, we have a basic instinct to regard the one-year-old as more valuable than the embryos. But, who knows? Maybe this time we will see something different in the exercise.

So, who is willing to step up to the plate and provide an answer? One-year-old or the cooler of 100 embryos? Quick. The building is on fire.

But, no matter what answer you get is not necessarily proof the answer is correct or that moral reasoning used is sound. It is a type of false choice used as a cudgel to try and refute an objective moral order.

Let us say there is your son and a stranger in the barn. If one answers they would save their son does that mean emotion is the way to reason?

 

[vz71]

“All the DNA does is prove the child is human and a seperate being from the mother or father.”

Sure. DNA is unique, and for any species its expression results in a unique being. I don’t think there is any argument about that from any quarter. Is there?

But, just for fun, are twins two unique beings?

No, they are unique human beings. The genetics may be identical, but they are still human, and their individual experience makes them unique.

Or how about the cloned dog? Both donor and clone have the same DNA. Are they unique?

Yes. They are unique dogs. Individual experience will still make them unique.
You may be able to clone fido, But will he ever fetch you slippers again?

If they are, it is not dependent on DNA.

True enough, uniqueness is not dependent upon DNA. Defining human is dependent upon it. And the DNA is all that is required to prove the individual is seperate from the mother and father.

DNA crushes any argument on the pro-abortion side that the abortion is analogous to an appendectomy or a hang nail being removed.

 

[WillieWonka]

But, no matter what answer you get is not necessarily proof the answer is correct or that moral reasoning used is sound. It is a type of false choice used as a cudgel to try and refute an objective moral order.

Let us say there is your son and a stranger in the barn. If one answers they would save their son does that mean emotion is the way to reason?

Proof? Of course it isn’t. If we expect every answer to be proof, then we’d never ask a question about anything. But, it’s a simple question, and as I mentioned above, anti-abortion folks won’t answer. I suspect they would grab the one-year-old and head for the door, but they don’t want to admit it.

Regarding your question, I’d rescue my son because I value his life above a stranger’s. My answer has nothing to do with the way to reason. I don’t care about the way to reason when the barn is on fire. All I’m trying to do is rescue the kid. It’s simply what I would do, and it’s easy to answer.

So, who would rescue the one-year-old and let the embryos perish? Who would rescue the embryos and let the one-year-old perish?

 

[vz71]

This is an interesting exercise. Pro-choice folks almost always choose the one-year-old. Most anti-abortion folks won’t answer the question.

That is because the pro-life side recognizes the argument for what it is.

A play to try to force a decision of one human life over another.

I do not play the game. I rescue who I can when I can. If you wish to try to narrow down further then I concede to your control over the question. And you are free to provide any answer you wish as they are all meaningless.

 

[vz71]

But, it’s a simple question, and as I mentioned above, anti-abortion folks won’t answer. I suspect they would grab the one-year-old and head for the door, but they don’t want to admit it.

No, it is a game.
No matter the answer, the cards are stacked.

And most pro-life individuals recognize that.

 

[WillieWonka]

"DNA crushes any argument on the pro-abortion side that the abortion is analogous to an appendectomy or a hang nail being removed."

I would really appreciate any cite to a pro-abortion advocate who says that. To date, I have not encountered any. I only hear that idea when anti-abortion folks assign it to their opponents. That doesn’t mean it’s never used, So does anyone have a handy link showing this argument used by pro-abortion folks?

But, we have made progress here. By considering twins and clones, we have extablished it is experience, not DNA, that makes an individual unique.

 

[WillieWonka]

**That is because the pro-life side recognizes the argument for what it is.

A play to try to force a decision of one human life over another.

I do not play the game. I rescue who I can when I can. If you wish to try to narrow down further then I concede to your control over the question. And you are free to provide any answer you wish as they are all meaningless. **

Of course it’s a game. That’s how it’s designed.

I also suspect everyone reading the question has already played the game and has answered it in their heart. They know they would recsue the one-year-old. They know they would let the embryos perish. But, that bothers them, and they don’t know how to reconcile this with their beliefs.

You don’t expect this to be easy, do you?

**No, it is a game.
No matter the answer, the cards are stacked.

And most pro-life individuals recognize that. **

Absolutely. The deck is stacked to test conviction and principles. Does life always give a fair deal? Conviction and principles need to be tested.

 

[royal_archer]

“An egg after conception becomes a being.”

What is a being?

A single self contatined entity

“Glad to see you are consistent with people harming their own bodies.”

I am quite content for folks to do as they please with their own bodies. Look how fat so many are. Why does that make you glad?

This separates you from the many so called pro choice people who are actually pro abortion but against choice on numerous other topics.

“So why do you feel it is OK to murder a person in the early stages of development?”

As I said before, I don’t think murder is ever OK because murder is defined as being not OK.

Then why are you advocating for a legal option to murder children?

“To say acorn vs tree implies two different phases of development. They are the same thing in different stages of development.”

So an acorn is an oak tree?

Here’s an old thought experiment that’s been around forever. You are in a burning building. You can rescue a one-year-old baby or a cooler with 100 human embryos. You can’t rescue both, and you are certain the one you do not rescue will perish. Do you rescue the one-year-old or the embryos? Who here would rescue the embryos and let the one-year-old cook?

A good phylosophical question but with a few inherrant flaws in its relevance. As an annalogy to abortion, there is no choose one or the other scenario as outlined here. In your example you are setting up a situation where one has to choose the perceived better good. along with the perception of the value of one vs 100 lives one must consider the level of emotional attachment. My 100 children vs someone elses one child (or vice versa). Would I save the life of someone I know over 100 people I don’t know? Probably, but I wouldn’t wish them harm. Nor would I feel morally justified to do so. Protecting the one I know over the ones I don’t is an act of selfishness.

 

[royal_archer]

I seek your answer to the question. I don’t know what it is. What is it? I’d take the one-year-old. How about you?

I have no idea what the answer means until you tell me. My answer means I see the life of the 100 frozen embryos as having less value than the single one-year-old. What’s your answer, and what does it mean?

This is an interesting exercise. Pro-choice folks almost always choose the one-year-old. Most anti-abortion folks won’t answer the question.

I think the point the exercise makes is that regardless of our professed intellectual beliefs, we have a basic instinct to regard the one-year-old as more valuable than the embryos. But, who knows? Maybe this time we will see something different in the exercise.

So, who is willing to step up to the plate and provide an answer? One-year-old or the cooler of 100 embryos? Quick. The building is on fire.

The reason most won’t answer is because the question creates a scenario where there are no good answers. This simmilar to the question of “When did you stop beeting your wife?” Either answer is wrong.

 

[royal_archer]

Proof? Of course it isn’t. If we expect every answer to be proof, then we’d never ask a question about anything. But, it’s a simple question, and as I mentioned above, anti-abortion folks won’t answer. I suspect they would grab the one-year-old and head for the door, but they don’t want to admit it.

Regarding your question, I’d rescue my son because I value his life above a stranger’s. My answer has nothing to do with the way to reason. I don’t care about the way to reason when the barn is on fire. All I’m trying to do is rescue the kid. It’s simply what I would do, and it’s easy to answer.

So, who would rescue the one-year-old and let the embryos perish? Who would rescue the embryos and let the one-year-old perish?

So you are in the barn with two individuals who represent two of the other three races, different from your own. You can only save one. Which one would you save? Why do you hate the other race?

The other reason pro abortion people are so quick to answer is that they do not have the capability to understant the logic trap. Logical people normally do not advocate for the murder of babies.

 

[royal_archer]

**That is because the pro-life side recognizes the argument for what it is.

A play to try to force a decision of one human life over another.

I do not play the game. I rescue who I can when I can. If you wish to try to narrow down further then I concede to your control over the question. And you are free to provide any answer you wish as they are all meaningless. **

Of course it’s a game. That’s how it’s designed.

I also suspect everyone reading the question has already played the game and has answered it in their heart. They know they would recsue the one-year-old. They know they would let the embryos perish. But, that bothers them, and they don’t know how to reconcile this with their beliefs.

You don’t expect this to be easy, do you?

**No, it is a game.
No matter the answer, the cards are stacked.

And most pro-life individuals recognize that. **

Absolutely. The deck is stacked to test conviction and principles. Does life always give a fair deal? Conviction and principles need to be tested.

As I said you are much more fun than some other irrational / illogical individuals here who have tried to advocate for the pro abortion side.
Being somewhat rationale as you are, how do you justify allowing a human being to die when there are not theoretical circumstances forcing you to choose between one life or another?

 

[royal_archer]

"DNA crushes any argument on the pro-abortion side that the abortion is analogous to an appendectomy or a hang nail being removed."

I would really appreciate any cite to a pro-abortion advocate who says that. To date, I have not encountered any. I only hear that idea when anti-abortion folks assign it to their opponents. That doesn’t mean it’s never used, So does anyone have a handy link showing this argument used by pro-abortion folks?

But, we have made progress here. By considering twins and clones, we have extablished it is experience, not DNA, that makes an individual unique.

What about comparing the child to a skin cell?

 

[Drawmack]

This is an interesting exercise. Pro-choice folks almost always choose the one-year-old. Most anti-abortion folks won’t answer the question.

The names are pro-choice and pro-life, please use them appropriately. I have gone to bat numerous times for pro-lifers not using the appropriate terminology here and I will not sit idly by wile the pro-choice side uses inappropriate language either. If you’re not going to call my side by the name it designated to itself, pro-life, then please refer to your side by the name I designate – pro-murder.

 

[Drawmack]

I seek your answer to the question. I don’t know what it is. What is it? I’d take the one-year-old. How about you?

I have no idea what the answer means until you tell me. My answer means I see the life of the 100 frozen embryos as having less value than the single one-year-old. What’s your answer, and what does it mean?

This is an interesting exercise. Pro-choice folks almost always choose the one-year-old. Most anti-abortion folks won’t answer the question.

I think the point the exercise makes is that regardless of our professed intellectual beliefs, we have a basic instinct to regard the one-year-old as more valuable than the embryos. But, who knows? Maybe this time we will see something different in the exercise.

So, who is willing to step up to the plate and provide an answer? One-year-old or the cooler of 100 embryos? Quick. The building is on fire.

After having had my house burn down – twice; having had to make these types of snap decisions – twice; being extremely surprised (in retrospect) at the choices I made; I am unwilling to say which I would choose until, and unless, I am placed in the situation. I believe that anyone who does answer is speaking flippantly of a dire situation I would hope no one is ever put into.

 

[Drawmack]

DNA crushes any argument on the pro-abortion side that the abortion is analogous to an appendectomy or a hang nail being removed.

pro-choice

 

[fix]

pro-choice

pro abortion