Irrefutable pro-life argument

[fkjuliano]

I think the world is already overpopulated, but I would not support a draconian method such as this (or imprisonment, or forced abortions or sterilizations). Not because I think the fetus is a person, but because I value human freedom.

There are better alternatives such as economic rewards or punishments for controlling people’s behavior, without resorting to forced medical procedures or killings.

It also happens that when women are educated and have economic opportunities, they voluntarily choose to have 0-2 children as shown by natural birth rates in Western countries. This would seem a far better way to combat overpopulation.

Women in Western countries who have 0 to 2 children do that not because they are “educated,” but because they are materialistic and hedonistic. In fact, I would submit that they are very poorly educated in anything that really matters. As a consequence of their behavior, Europe, the cradle of Christianity and Western civilization, has a falling population and is being colonized by hordes of Muslim immigrants. And while that may not mean anything to you, to Christians it is a tragedy, though one that I have faith will ultimately be averted by God’s mighty hand.

Sometimes I think I should go to France and preach against their asinine “laicité” on the streets.

 

[flyingfish]

You make no sense. You defend abortion as a conveniance yet you continue to come up with excuses when we are talking about 1 year old infants you don’t believe have a right to live like you or I.

And you suggesting there should be punishments to control people who have more than their ‘appropriate’ number of children takes away that human freedom you say you value.

I don’t understand what your objection is. I think my view is consistent, I don’t think killing a human who isn’t yet self aware is murder. I don’t think killing infants who haven’t become self aware should be murder.

That doesn’t mean I think it would be okay to go around killing them. They are valuable to their parents, there are families wanting to adopt them if the parents don’t want them.

If absolutely no one on the planet wants to take care of a pre-self aware infant, I think it would be acceptable to kill it whether directly or indirectly by denying food.

For my second point, having economic incentives for optimal family size is fine in my opinion. For example, families who have the optimal family size could be given tax cuts, and those who don’t would be without. Or women who have the optimal number of children would be given a free education in a school of their choice, and those who didn’t wouldn’t get that.

As a consequence of their behavior, Europe, the cradle of Christianity and Western civilization, has a falling population and is being colonized by hordes of Muslim immigrants.

Those are unrelated issues. The “hordes of Muslim immigrants” that are a social problem in Europe are in large part uneducated refugees/families. It wouldn’t be a problem if Europe didn’t take in refugees, and had selective immigration that allowed only highly educated people who weren’t religious fanatics. That kind of immigration would improve the quality of their society by the way, and would raise the average education level/IQ etc. of the population.

 

[kimmielittle]

Overpopulation is a lie. It doesn’t fit the facts and has been debunked many times. See here:

wnd.com/index.php?pageId=816

or for those who prefer hard copy, procure Sasson’s ‘Handbook on Population’.

Thank you for this link.

Many people seem to buy into the Mr. Peter Singer - Marie Stoples International - UN Population Fund - International Planned Parenthood et al philosophies. These groups have used Environmental issues to hide their true agendas - true faces.

 

[kimmielittle]

I don’t understand what your objection is. I think my view is consistent, I don’t think killing a human who isn’t yet self aware is murder. I don’t think killing infants who haven’t become self aware should be murder.

My objection is …you are embracing Eugenics - Or simply put - selective worth.

If absolutely no one on the planet wants to take care of a pre-self aware infant, I think it would be acceptable to kill it whether directly or indirectly by denying food.

Why stop there "pre-self aware infant’ ]? Why not kill any human that’s unwanted - Or deemed, by you or others, as not self aware?

This is called Eugenics.

For my second point, having economic incentives for optimal family size is fine in my opinion. For example, families who have the optimal family size could be given tax cuts, and those who don’t would be without. Or women who have the optimal number of children would be given a free education in a school of their choice, and those who didn’t wouldn’t get that.

You make no point - except for a Totalitarian State regime. These regimes also embrace Eugenics…Abortion…Euthanasia - all for convenience of The State. China, is an example of this thinking. China now faces a shortage of girls to marry.

Those are unrelated issues. The “hordes of Muslim immigrants” that are a social problem in Europe are in large part uneducated refugees/families. It wouldn’t be a problem if Europe didn’t take in refugees, and had selective immigration that allowed only highly educated people who weren’t religious fanatics. That kind of immigration would improve the quality of their society by the way, and would raise the average education level/IQ etc. of the population.

Could you reference this premise - or is it just your personal opinion?

It seems to me, that many of the religious fanatics are highly educated with a good deal of intelligence.

 

[fkjuliano]

Those are unrelated issues. The “hordes of Muslim immigrants” that are a social problem in Europe are in large part uneducated refugees/families. It wouldn’t be a problem if Europe didn’t take in refugees, and had selective immigration that allowed only highly educated people who weren’t religious fanatics. That kind of immigration would improve the quality of their society by the way, and would raise the average education level/IQ etc. of the population.

These issues are inextricably related. The majority of the Muslims in Europe are certainly not refugees but economic migrants, who are let in because of the equally secular and equally materialistic doctrine that there must be perpetual economic growth, which is hardly possible in the context of a falling population. In other words, since the European population would be crashing otherwise, the Muslims (with whom I have no quarrel other than wishing they would stay within the vast confines of the Muslim world) are a substitute for the babies the “educated” Europeans of today fail to produce.

 

[Doc_Keele]

if you ever actually responded to an argument you might be able to claim that…but not against me.

Kind of hard to call someone else’s argument a straw man when you never respond on topic and never substantiate anything. And oh yes heaven forbid you specify why something is perc

This is all irrelevant to whether someone is making a straw man argument or not
I shouldn’t need to spell out what a straw man argument is, should I? Will a link to a logical fallacy site suffice?

 

[Doc_Keele]

All it proves is how universal, willful ignorance is.

Des, you’re a hoot!

I’m genuinely having a good laugh to myself on my sofa as I sit here eating breakfast. I can’t think of a witty reply just yet, I’m not a morning person so I’ll just shake my head to myself and leave you to it.

I will observe how people who don’t know much about a topic really are not a very good judge of whether other people know much about that topic

 

[flyingfish]

These issues are inextricably related. The majority of the Muslims in Europe are certainly not refugees but economic migrants, who are let in because of the equally secular and equally materialistic doctrine that there must be perpetual economic growth, which is hardly possible in the context of a falling population. In other words, since the European population would be crashing otherwise, the Muslims (with whom I have no quarrel other than wishing they would stay within the vast confines of the Muslim world) are a substitute for the babies the “educated” Europeans of today fail to produce.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe#Contemporary_issues

After the colonies achieved independence, the European countries enabled mass immigration from their former colonies. In the 1960s and early 1970s, guest workers were brought over by the governments of France, the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Another class of immigrants were the descendants of those who moved internally inside a European colonial empire, and from their to the home country such as the descendants of indentured Indian labourers in the Caribbean. Once the European countries imposed an immigration ban, the type of immigration shifted. Today most Muslim immigrants come either as asylum seekers or as part of family reunification. Many of the second generation migrants marry spouses from their former homeland. Some countries have tried to cut down on such immigration by passing strict laws, such as the Danish 24 year rule.

That is the main problem. The kind of people who come as asylum seekers, or families brought in are not carefully selected.

If you just have regular immigration you can ensure that only highly qualified, educated, and successful professionals get into your country. There are plenty of these in India and East Asia and frankly Muslim countries as well.

You can make an immigrant’s ability to remain in your country conditional on their integration, and simply deport those who fail to assimilate and embrace the values and customs of your country.

 

[Des]

That doesn’t mean I think it would be okay to go around killing them. They are valuable to their parents, there are families wanting to adopt them if the parents don’t want them.

If the parents don’t find them valuable like the many we hear of throwing their newborns in the garbage, you couldn’t object anymore than you’d object to a mother who ‘mistakenly’ got pregnant or who kill their unborn children because the ultrasound told them they were handicapped, yet you continue to apply reasons for the infants to be saved than you would a fetus. That’s where you’re inconsistant. It’s like you’re afraid to even hear yourself say it’s ok for them to kill a 1 year old infant if they choose to. It’s as simple as that,

Why stop there "pre-self aware infant’ ]? Why not kill any human that’s unwanted - Or deemed, by you or others, as not self aware?

Flying Fish has taken it upon himself to make even a fraction of self awareness, his rule of thumb where one becomes a full person. Of course logically it would only make them a fraction of a person if self awareness is the way to go.

Good point about the muslims btw.

I will observe how people who don’t know much about a topic really are not a very good judge of whether other people know much about that topic

lol there are many pro-life doctors out there who’d doubt you’re even a doctor with the things you’ve said since this is the internet after all. Hey, I’m a doctor too, so are both my parents, my brother and sister. In fact, I come from a long line of doctors for generations and generations. Oh, I’m also the Easter Bunny.

 

[flyingfish]

If the parents don’t find them valuable like the many we hear of throwing their newborns in the garbage, you couldn’t object anymore than you’d object to a mother who ‘mistakenly’ got pregnant or who kill their unborn children because the ultrasound told them they were handicapped, yet you continue to apply reasons for the infants to be saved than you would a fetus. That’s where you’re inconsistant. It’s like you’re afraid to even hear yourself say it’s ok for them to kill a 1 year old infant if they choose to. It’s as simple as that,

I see what you’re trying to say, but I disagree. I think there is a fundamental difference between a newborn and a fetus, because the fetus is inside the woman’s body and the newborn is not.

If, for example, babies developed in artificial wombs I think there would be no difference between 2 months after conception or 10 months.

The only way that a pregnant woman can be free of the fetus is abortion. A mother of a newborn can give the newborn away to be raised by another couple. There is no need for the mother of a newborn to kill the newborn if she doesn’t want it.

I don’t see what you think I’m afraid of, I already said that if no one wants to provide for the newborn, it would be acceptable to let it die. I don’t think anyone could be forced to feed a newborn they didn’t want to feed.

Flying Fish has taken it upon himself to make even a fraction of self awareness, his rule of thumb where one becomes a full person. Of course logically it would only make them a fraction of a person if self awareness is the way to go.

I honestly don’t understand why you have this issue with discrete systems.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Yes, Des, I’ll just leave you to it I think
I don’t have much to say to people like yourself in all honesty, it’s not like you’re going to say anything useful or interesting is it?

 

[LittleSoldier]

I see what you’re trying to say, but I disagree. I think there is a fundamental difference between a newborn and a fetus, because the fetus is inside the woman’s body and the newborn is not.

If, for example, babies developed in artificial wombs I think there would be no difference between 2 months after conception or 10 months.

Yes, both wouldn’t even exist. After all, neither would have self-awareness.

The only way that a pregnant woman can be free of the fetus is abortion. A mother of a newborn can give the newborn away to be raised by another couple. There is no need for the mother of a newborn to kill the newborn if she doesn’t want it.

I was pregnant three times. I hate to tell you this (actually I don’t hate it at all) but there is another way that a pregnant woman can be free of the fetus.

It’s called BIRTH.

I don’t see what you think I’m afraid of, I already said that if no one wants to provide for the newborn, it would be acceptable to let it die. I don’t think anyone could be forced to feed a newborn they didn’t want to feed.

This sort of statement is what makes your position so absolutely horrifying. You actually think it’s morally acceptable to allow a newborn infant to die. I’m not concerned with the circumstances. My concern is your absolute lack of respect for human life.

Your second sentence isn’t even logical. If you didn’t want to feed a newborn and I held a gun to your head, do you think you would then feed her? I think you probably would. So, most likely anyone can be forced to feed a newborn they didn’t want to feed.

I believe most people who found a newborn in a dumpster would call emergency services or rush the baby to a hospital. The fact that you don’t see any problem with letting her die from lack of food (not to mention cold, being nibbled on by rats and other vermin, and general shock from what has happened to her) makes me think you also don’t care about older people, such as babies below the age of eighteen months (remember that study that “showed” that babies show no self-awareness until eighteen months of age?), toddlers, school-age children, teens, adults, and the elderly. I really would like to know what you think of an elderly person who needs extensive medical care to remain alive and out of pain. Do you think it’s OK to starve this person to death if nobody in the world wants to feed her?

I’m seeing a major flaw in your reasoning that I can’t quite put my finger on. It seems to me that if an unborn being without self-awareness does not exist, then a born being without self-awareness also doesn’t exist. That just makes sense to me.

You bring in concepts like value to the parents or that the mother can just give the baby away, which has nothing to do with self-awareness.

And then you post what I quoted above.

So - all I can figure out (and I thought about this off and on yesterday) is there is something else going on about the right-to-life of an unborn human being that has absolutely nothing to do with self-awareness, value to parents, or the ability to just give the born baby away.

It’s my opinion that you really just believe abortions are A-OK for any reason under the sun and that is that. You have stated before that it’s fine to use abortion for birth control, although you said it might be better to restrict that to the first trimester. Why, I don’t know, maybe in an attempt to placate the prolifers here. It is illogical to restrict such action to the first trimester, as it has been shown that even newborns don’t have that self-awareness you are constantly using as a rationale for the right-to-life.

I’m finding that a lot of pro-abortionists attempt to rationalize their beliefs with terms like
“consciousness,” “self-awareness,” “personhood,” etc. ad nauseum. These are mostly subjective terms for which there is no consensus of definition among scientists or philosophers. It wouldn’t make any difference if there were consensus. Truth isn’t decided on by consensus or vote - it exists as unchanging and unchangeable.

The Truth is that all human beings are precious and should be protected. It is a shame you can’t see this.

*Holy Mother, I pray especially hard today
that you keep all unborn infants safe.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals. *

 

[LittleSoldier]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe#Contemporary_issues

That is the main problem. The kind of people who come as asylum seekers, or families brought in are not carefully selected.

If you just have regular immigration you can ensure that only highly qualified, educated, and successful professionals get into your country. There are plenty of these in India and East Asia and frankly Muslim countries as well.

You can make an immigrant’s ability to remain in your country conditional on their integration, and simply deport those who fail to assimilate and embrace the values and customs of your country.

I don’t know where you live, but I do know that in the USA there is a famous statue called the Statue of Liberty - a gift from France. This is inscribed on a pedestal there:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

[Emma Lazarus]

The immigration policies of every country should reflect what is inscribed on that pedestal.

I would like to introduce into this thread a term which is looked upon as archaic by many Americans today - the term is “melting pot.” The USA is not a melting pot - it is a “salad bowl.” Immigrants from different countries bring their customs, their music, their food, their values to the USA and all of these should be accepted (they often improve the immigrants’ newly adopted country) as long as they do not interfere with the freedoms and values bestowed upon all human beings simply by virtue of their being human beings.

Such as the right to life of every human being.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[kimmielittle]

Yes, Des, I’ll just leave you to it I think
I don’t have much to say to people like yourself in all honesty, it’s not like you’re going to say anything useful or interesting is it?

I beg to differ with you.

You seem to not want to backup your assertions. When your assertions are shown wrong - you don’t answer.

IMHO perceived clever one liner quips - don’t address issues and frankly, I’d expect to hear them from kids of my age group who are weak in presenting their views.

As always, just my thoughts

 

[Doc_Keele]

I beg to differ with you.

You seem to not want to backup your assertions. When your assertions are shown wrong - you don’t answer.

IMHO perceived clever one liner quips - don’t address issues and frankly, I’d expect to hear them from kids of my age group who are weak in presenting their views.

As always, just my thoughts

Which assertions of mine have been shown to be wrong? Name one. Asserting without proof about my alleged assertions without proof is kind of ironic, isn’t it? I always acknowledge when I’m wrong actually. Doesn’t happen very often

 

[adriancombe]

This is all irrelevant to whether someone is making a straw man argument or not
I shouldn’t need to spell out what a straw man argument is, should I? Will a link to a logical fallacy site suffice?

Um, only in the context of demonstrating that you know what it means. Based on your use of the term so far, the opposite appears to be the case.

In other words, show me what argument you think I have made into a straw man.

 

[kimmielittle]

Which assertions of mine have been shown to be wrong? Name one.

Does the title Doctor guarantee the knowledge of the workings of biology?

How about your assertion in post 195?

Without referencing your assertions - they become nothing more than speculated opinion - Yet, you present them as factual. When you fail to reference - your assertion fails.

Asserting without proof about my alleged assertions without proof is kind of ironic, isn’t it?

Cute…but you provided me with proof that your assertions are not backed-up by facts. THAT to me, is ironic.

You have chosen to present yourself as a Doctor - Yet, give your assertions without evidence. Do you operate / treat without the basics of evidence i.e, blood tests - xrays - etc? But you would have us accept your assertions as fact without evidence.

Again, without referencing your assertions - they are nonfactual opinions - based upon unknowns.

I always acknowledge when I’m wrong actually. Doesn’t happen very often

I’ll leave you with a quote;"‘The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.’ Einstein

 

[Doc_Keele]

Does the title Doctor guarantee the knowledge of the workings of biology?

How about your assertion in post 195?

Without referencing your assertions - they become nothing more than speculated opinion - Yet, you present them as factual. When you fail to reference - your assertion fails.

Cute…but you provided me with proof that your assertions are not backed-up by facts. THAT to me, is ironic.

You have chosen to present yourself as a Doctor - Yet, give your assertions without evidence. Do you operate / treat without the basics of evidence i.e, blood tests - xrays - etc? But you would have us accept your assertions as fact without evidence.

Again, without referencing your assertions - they are nonfactual opinions - based upon unknowns.

I’ll leave you with a quote;"‘The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.’ Einstein

So you’ve completely diverted the topic now
I asked you for an example of where one of my assertions have been shown to be wrong. You haven’t given one.

Very strange.

The assertion I made in post 195 is completely true, and this can be found by looking at the relevant documents.

So you’re just blustering now instead of addressing the issue YOU brought up
Heavily ironic:thumbsup:

 

[kimmielittle]

So you’ve completely diverted the topic now

I didn’t write post 195

I asked you for an example of where one of my assertions have been shown to be wrong. You haven’t given one.

Hmmmm…283 asserts that the title Doctor gives some sort of strange special knowledge of biology - It does not.

The assertion I made in post 195 is completely true, and this can be found by looking at the relevant documents.

Then you would have no problem producing the body - I’m especially interested in the Catholic Church’s evidence to uphold your assertion that abortion to save the life of the Mother is forbidden - It does not.exist.

So you’re just blustering now instead of addressing the issue YOU brought up
Heavily ironic:thumbsup:

Actually, no. You are being asked to produce evidence. Surely, a Doctor would agree to providing a patient with the body of evidence?

In the school yard we have a saying. "you’ve been schooled’

 

[Doc_Keele]

I didn’t write post 195

eh?

Hmmmm…283 asserts that the title Doctor gives some sort of strange special knowledge of biology - It does not

It does not assert that. Doctors do have an extensive knowledge of the anatomy and physiology of the human body.

Then you would have no problem producing the body - I’m especially interested in the Catholic Church’s evidence to uphold your assertion that abortion to save the life of the Mother is forbidden - It does not.exist

It certainly does LOL. I found it quite hilarious thinking of all the times I advocated commonsense doctrines to have the Pro-Life troopers “blast” me with Church documents saying how this was reprehensible, and now these people have gone into hiding

Actually, no. You are being asked to produce evidence

You stated that my assertions have been proved wrong, yet you’re unable to furnish me with one example of this.

Surely, a Doctor would agree to providing a patient with the body of evidence?

In the school yard we have a saying. "you’ve been schooled’

Juvenile slang? Oh dear
I didn’t furnish patients with the “body of evidence”, I advised them.