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.
I expect moral answers to be based on an objective moral order, not relativism.

OK. So give us your answer based on objective moral order. Note the scenario is set up so you can’t save both one-year-old and the 100 embryos. So that option means they both perish

The answer is to try and save both. Is one life more valuable than another?

An attempt to save both means they both perish. There are certainly situations where that wouldn’t be the case, but this scenario is set up so you are convinced you can take only one or the other.

I value the one-year-old more than the 100 embryos. How about you? Which do you save?

But, what is the puropose of such speculation? People can react in various ways when stressed. How does that shed light on our topic?

I don’t know. You asked the question about my son in the barn. What was your purpose? I agree people can react in various ways under pressure. So my scenario is an opportunity to answer without the flames crawling up your leg.

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?

But one life is not 100 lives. Which would you rescue? The one-year-old or the 100 embryos.
 
***(That would be a good name for a band: One Year Old and the Hundred Embryos.

Limerick)***
 
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...
How can you call them pro choice when they are against giving the child or father a choice? Further, many of the leaders of this movement are totalitarian in nearly every other aspect of life.
 
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...
This wouild be true if they were to take on a name with out a pre assigned meaning. However these terms have meanings that predated the movement. To call them by a name with a known meaning when they do not represent that meaning is to lie unless you phrase it as the ‘self proclaimed “Pro-choice”’ or the ‘so called “pro-choice”’ these qualifiers are necesary when using a term outside of its accepted meaning.
 
Drawmack said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’ll play this game a while. Are you willing to insist that they all refer to me as “The worlds highest and most respected authority on any subject currently or ever to be known by mankind” If they can ask others to refer to them by innaccurate titles, why can’t I?
 
WillieWonka said:
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.
Click to expand...
Then you must be a racist who would be willing to just let that other person die simply because of their race. Of course such scrutiny is illogical but that is what the pro abortion people are: illogical. They use emotional arguments to demonize people who see things differently.
 
WillieWonka said:
**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.
Click to expand...
If I have not been introduced to the 100 children, I would not know them and would likely be more familiar with the newborn.

What is wrong is letting the other die.
 
WillieWonka said:
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.
Click to expand...
So how do you justify being “pro-choice” which is in essense turning your back and not lifting a finger while millions die?
 
Drawmack said:
If you insist on ascribing a name to the your opponent, you give them the right to ascribe a name to you.
Click to expand...
I have no problem refuting incorrect arguments. They can call me what they like and if it is incorrect I will show them.
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?
Click to expand...
It is not inflammatory. It is true. If you say hello to me and I claim offense and claim saying hello is inflammatory does that make my position true?
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.
Click to expand...
I am being fair and accurate. If people want to call support for babies not being killed anti abortion that is fine and true. It may be incomplete, but it is not incorrect nor do I put up a fit like a child. If I hear some untruth my first reaction is not to claim I will no longer listen. That is not an adult way to behave. If the people you claim to defend refuse to accept the truth the answer is not to continue to confirm them in their error.
 
royal_archer said:
I’ll play this game a while. Are you willing to insist that they all refer to me as “The worlds highest and most respected authority on any subject currently or ever to be known by mankind” If they can ask others to refer to them by innaccurate titles, why can’t I?
Click to expand...
Thank you. That is basically the argument.
 
WillieWonka said:
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.
Click to expand...
What does that prove?
 
royal_archer said:
But you didn’t use my proper title:mad: . . . 😃
Click to expand...
The worlds highest and most respected authority on any subject currently or ever to be known by mankind has correctly, once again, characterized the situation.:tiphat:

Or, you should refuse to hear my comment because I did not address you as you demand, no matter how inaccurate…😃
 
royal_archer said:
Then you must be a racist who would be willing to just let that other person die simply because of their race. Of course such scrutiny is illogical but that is what the pro abortion people are: illogical. They use emotional arguments to demonize people who see things differently.
Click to expand...
Sorry. I don’t follow you. Can you elaborate?
 
Just in case anyone has forgotten, here’s the scenario again.

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?

I said earlier that anti-abortion folks can’t answer. I think this thread is proving me right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top