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

  • Thread starter Thread starter St_Francis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
WillieWonka said:
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.
Click to expand...
pro-life
 
WillieWonka said:
"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.
Click to expand...
pro-choice, pro-life, pro-choice
 
royal_archer said:
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?
Click to expand...
The one closer to me. I don’t have the other race, they hate me and that’s why they were farther away. 😃
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.
Click to expand...
pro-choice
 
royal_archer said:
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?
Click to expand...
pro-choice
 
fix said:
pro abortion
Click to expand...
If we refuse to use the terminology they designate to themselves, we loose the right to designate a name for ourselves. The poor language used in the abortion debate, by both sides, is divisive and contributes to the misunderstanding.
 
WillieWonka said:
**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.
Click to expand...
**Now, wait. There’s not enough information about the embryos. Are they in a deep freeze tank? Is it powered by electricity? Can it be moved without the embryos perishing? What if the tank were on a dolly equipped with a device to pull if from one location to the next?

See? Nobody even ASKS about the embryos.

Limerick**
 
**I was in a hotel fire in Nashville in 1998, a big 3-alarm fire than raged all night long. What did I grab? My cash, my airline tickets and my eyebrow pencil. My daughter was with me. All I had to do was say, “G, there’s a fire.” She was up and outta there. Of course, she was a bit older than one year.

Funny what you grab when threatened.

L**
 
WillieWonka said:
Proof? Of course it isn’t. If we expect every answer to be proof, then we’d never ask a question about anything.
Click to expand...
I expect moral answers to be based on an objective moral order, not relativism.
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.
Click to expand...
The answer is to try and save both. Is one life more valuable than another?
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.
Click to expand...
But, what is the puropose of such speculation? People can react in various ways when stressed. How does that shed light on our topic?
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?
Click to expand...
No one wants anyone to perish. BTW, a life is a life no matter who gets saved or who cannot be saved. Why does it matter which life is picked?
 
Drawmack said:
If we refuse to use the terminology they designate to themselves, we loose the right to designate a name for ourselves. The poor language used in the abortion debate, by both sides, is divisive and contributes to the misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
If you play along with the dehumanizing language you do not serve justice or make things any more clear.
 
limerick said:
**I was in a hotel fire in Nashville in 1998, a big 3-alarm fire than raged all night long. What did I grab? My cash, my airline tickets and my eyebrow pencil. My daughter was with me. All I had to do was say, “G, there’s a fire.” She was up and outta there. Of course, she was a bit older than one year.

Funny what you grab when threatened.

L**
Click to expand...
Yes it is funny isn’t it! Anyone who has been in a similar situation to the one posed by the question will tell you that you can’t know what you will do until you’re in the situation.
 
fix said:
If you play along with the dehumanizing language you do not serve justice or make things any more clear.
Click to expand...
If you insist on ascribing a name to the your opponent, you give them the right to ascribe a name to you.

Do you think that you’re case is so weak that you have to rely on inflammatory and emotional speech instead of well reasoned and well presented facts?

This is off topic, I was simply correcting bad speech from both sides. I find it amusing that you didn’t say anything about the corrections I made to their speech. Either be fair or realize that you’re only hurting yourself by not being fair.
 
**A single self contatined entity **

That makes a single skin cell a being. Like a single fertilized egg.

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

I’m not.

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.

Note my scenario didn’t say you know the one-year-old in question. It just presented a one-year-old and 100 embryos. Let’s say the one-year-old is a total stranger. Do you save the one-year-old ot the 100 embryos?

**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. **

Wrong? How can it possible be wrong to save a one-year-old? How can it be wrong to save 100 embryos? The fact that you can’t do everything hardly makes a choice wrong. Let’s hope firefighters don’t freeze up because they can’t save everyone.
 
royal_archer said:
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.
Click to expand...
Assuming they are strangers and there is nothing to differentiate them other than race, I save the Asian.

I think everyone is quick to answer the question in their own mind. However, the anti-abortion folks don’t want to admit it.
 
royal_archer said:
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?
Click to expand...
Thank you. i’ve aways thought such discussions can be fun.

My scenario did set up circumstances where I was forced to choose. I can’t take both one-year-old and 100 embryos at the same time, and I am convinced I can save only one or the other. So, the circumstances are such that I can
  1. leave the building alone,
  2. take the one-year-old, or
  3. take the embryos.
I suggest the only justification needed would be for #1, which I did not choose.
 
Drawmack said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, since I’m drafting my own posts, the names used are whatever I choose to use. Feel free to call me whatever you choose.
 
Drawmack said:
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.
Click to expand...
Good point. One of the benefits of dealing with this type of scanario is we have the time to consider the situation. Think of it as training. If we embrace challenges like this, we are likely to make better decisions when faced with real decisions and no time to waste. It also lets us see if our convictions and principles hiold up under pressure. If they don’t hold up under the pressure of a thought experiment, I question if they have much real value.
 
limerick said:
**Now, wait. There’s not enough information about the embryos. Are they in a deep freeze tank? Is it powered by electricity? Can it be moved without the embryos perishing? What if the tank were on a dolly equipped with a device to pull if from one location to the next?

See? Nobody even ASKS about the embryos.

Limerick**
Click to expand...
I don’t know all that. All I know is the place is on fire and I can rescue the one-year-old or the 100 embryos.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top