Irrefutable pro-life argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter adriancombe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
flyingfish said:
Suppose the parents don’t want the newborn, no one wants to adopt the newborn, and the state has no money to feed the newborn.

Say there is a famine, and no one has extra food to give to the newborn.

What would you do? Force someone to go hungry to provide for it?
Click to expand...
I would go hungry for “it.” And there are a lot of people who do go hungry for “it” and who support charitable organizations which provide food for “it.” Mothers and fathers go hungry for their children all the time. That’s because they love their children and see their value as human beings. It would not be a hardship for relatively wealthy people to give up their filet mignon, their baked alaska, their expensive wine in order to provide a basic decent meal for every single hungry person in this world. You also haven’t taken into consideration that there a lot of organizations attempting to teach poor people how to grow food and become dependent upon themselves, and also people who give their time and lives to try to improve other conditions which keep people trapped in the cycle of poverty.
By the way, if the society as a whole is rich, and if the government has the money to sustain the newborn I think that’s what should be done (unless the country is overpopulated, and additional people would be a negative rather than a positive).
Click to expand...
Bah! Humbug! Let’s just let 'em die and solve the “over-population” problem.
I don’t see a problem with this because I don’t think the newborn is self aware, and I don’t think a person exists yet. I would not say the same about an older child who was self aware.
Click to expand...
Um, so you are saying (please correct me if I am wrong) that children who are born are kind of like persons and might have value to their parents as PROPERTY and their parents can give them away (as PROPERTY) if they don’t want them, but on the other hand, it would really be OK to let them starve or kill them because they wouldn’t really know what was going on even though they do exist, unlike the unborn child which doesn’t exist, even though the unborn child and the born child under eighteen months don’t have self-awareness?
:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
Actually I believe in socialized universal healthcare for all persons 🙂 Except should there be something like a famine or a drastic resource shortage, then yes, there wouldn’t be enough services for everyone.
Click to expand...
And would you expect to receive the limited services? What if it came down to you and a poorly educated person from a Third World country? What if that person was a child? Would you let the resources be given to that child instead of yourself? Or do you believe that somehow you are “more important” or have more value to society?
I don’t see why you have such a problem with this. A newborn that is not self aware can be viewed as valuable property of its parents. Most parents would probably value their newborn above adult strangers, and it makes perfect sense that they should.
Click to expand...
No - it makes no sense at all. None. Why would a non-existent uh, “it” have value to anyone? IT DOESN’T EVEN EXIST! It’s a will o’ the wisp, a delusion, a wish, a potential. See, this is one reason I see such a lack of understanding of the value of human life in your posts - you refer to newborns as “P-R-O-P-E-R-T-Y.” Why do you use that term? Newborns are property of no human being. They aren’t slaves!
I value my house above adult strangers, and I would not sell my house so that I could use the money to save the lives of starving people in the third world. I’d rather have the house (and frankly so would you, or you would have sold it, disconnected your internet, and used that money to provide for others).
Click to expand...
:eek: Why do you believe you know what I would do, have done, or think about doing? Where do you get off telling me that I value my house above adult strangers? That is really rude, you know. You have no idea what my living circumstances are and whether they will remain the same or change.

You don’t know about my physical condition, my age, or any of the plethora of conditions and decisions that go into my valuing “adult strangers.” Would it surprise you to know that I offered my apartment (at no cost, including the food there) to someone I barely knew? Would it surprise you to know that my mortgage payments are lower than rent, as my house is one built for low-income people and is small and not in very good condition? Would it surprise you to know that I do give support to “adult strangers” and also to “child strangers?” Would it surprise you to know that as I have gone on in my journey as a Catholic I have become much less materialistic?

As for my computer, without going into detail, this is the way I communicate with the world. It’s the only way I have to reach people worldwide. It is an integral tool used for what I believe I am on this earth to accomplish.

I am going to refuse to remark any more about my contributions to the poor, except to say that I value any human being more than a structure, even if that structure is my home.

-----continued in next post-----

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

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*
 
-----continuation of last post-----
There are also many couples in society who desperately want babies and can’t have their own. I think it makes sense to make laws that unwanted newborns should go to these couples rather than killed.
Click to expand...
I agree, except that I believe single people should also be given the opportunity to adopt. And as a single person I will be happy to adopt a baby or older child who is “unwanted.” Do you happen to know of any?

But here you go again with that word - “killed.” Why do you use that word? It’s awful. No human being has the right to kill another human being. When I read your posts I often get a picture in my mind of newborns being gassed like people in concentration camps in Germany during WWII. It is a horrible, mindless, tragedy to even suggest that we have the right to “kill” other human beings, except in self-defense of life.

To be honest, I find that your value system creeps me out. You use pejorative terms to describe human beings (“it,” “property,”) and really inappropriate terms to describe solutions to world hunger (“killing”). Your assessment of the value of those human beings who do not have self-awareness shows a certain selfishness and reminds me of some horror stories I’ve read about future societies.

It makes me sad to know there are actually people on this earth who believe as you do. I suppose you would buy a “foet” purse and see nothing wrong with doing so. Would you have a problem with grinding up aborted children and using them for animal feed? Would you have a problem with using aborted children to feed those hungry people in Third World countries? There was a movie about that a long time ago, called Soylent Green.

The thought of such a thing actually occurring sickens me.

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

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*
 
adriancombe said:
I also note this is at least the second time I have applied reductio ad absurdum to your positions and rather than adressing the problem with your argument (either by clarification, modification or retraction) you dismiss it as ‘straw man’ or ‘that is not what I’m saying’. Come clean if you want to be taken seriously on this forum - you who imply the forum is not ‘substantive’ enough for you!
Click to expand...
There’s nothing to come clean about LOL:D
Making a ridiculous argument is different from pointing out a problem with an argument.
And I did clarify my statement because I realised it was badly worded. Go back and read again.
 
LittleSoldier said:
-----continuation of last post-----

To be honest, I find that your value system creeps me out. You use pejorative terms to describe human beings (“it,” “property,”) and really inappropriate terms to describe solutions to world hunger (“killing”). Your assessment of the value of those human beings who do not have self-awareness shows a certain selfishness and reminds me of some horror stories I’ve read about future societies.

It makes me sad to know there are actually people on this earth who believe as you do. I suppose you would buy a “foet” purse and see nothing wrong with doing so. Would you have a problem with grinding up aborted children and using them for animal feed? Would you have a problem with using aborted children to feed those hungry people in Third World countries? There was a movie about that a long time ago, called Soylent Green.

The thought of such a thing actually occurring sickens me.

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

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*
Click to expand...
👍👍

The problem with being an elitist or selectionist - there comes a time in life, that they no longer are the elite. All - if they live long enough - will face this

It strikes me how the question offered up about “What would you do? Force someone to go hungry to provide for it?]” Comes up in this issue - when they embrace forced health are that does exactly this.
 
Doc_Keele said:
There’s no “reasoning”, it’s an observation of fact.
Click to expand...
The only fact I’m observing is that it is necessary to define the statute because the culture of death has brainwashed so many that the fetus doesn’t have rights. This is an example of why it is necessary to be able to see one’s own assumptions.
 
Doc_Keele said:
There’s no “reasoning”, it’s an observation of fact.
Click to expand...
Doc_Keele said:
There’s nothing to come clean about LOL:D
Making a ridiculous argument is different from pointing out a problem with an argument.
And I did clarify my statement because I realised it was badly worded. Go back and read again.
Click to expand...
Please specify a post number. There are a number of them…and I don’t recall anything being on topic or clarifying more than obfuscating.
 
Doc_Keele said:
…and what in my post suggested this was the case? Nothing:thumbsup:
The statement was descriptive not normative.
Click to expand...
Why would you state this “The existence of foetal homicide statutes (excepting Massachusetts) emphasizes the fact that common law doesn’t recognize the foetus as a person.”] If you weren’t trying to point out that the legality - As if this is some magic criteria for In favor of ] abortion?

And so I ask again, Sooo legality outweighs morality?
 
kimmielittle said:
Why would you assert this “The existence of foetal homicide statutes (excepting Massachusetts) emphasizes the fact that common law doesn’t recognize the foetus as a person.”] If you weren’t trying to point out that the legality - As if this is some magic criteria for In favor of ] abortion?

And so I ask again, Sooo legality outweighs morality?
Click to expand...
Well if you look at the context of the post, it should be clear. What didn’t you understand about my answer? I repeat the statement was descriptive not normative. I shouldn’t have to keep repeating myself.
 
Doc_Keele said:
Well if you look at the context of the post, it should be clear. What didn’t you understand about my answer? I repeat the statement was descriptive not normative. I shouldn’t have to keep repeating myself.
Click to expand...
How about addressing my question ’ Sooo legality outweighs morality?]’?
 
Doc_Keele said:
which I have addressed
Click to expand...
Sooo I take it to mean by not answering directly yes or no ] and because you stated it - as if it where some criteria in favor of abortion - that you believe, legality outweighs morality.

If you don’t - there wasn’t a reason - to state “The existence of foetal homicide statutes (excepting Massachusetts) emphasizes the fact that common law doesn’t recognize the foetus as a person.”]
 
Doc_Keele said:
You clearly don’t understand the English language:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
IMHO, your debate skills are something I’d expect from a kid that doesn’t know how to present their views well. :rolleyes:

Your *ad hominem *on me, doesn’t diminish my points - or any other posters here, who have constantly asked you for direct answers to your statements and assertions.

We each have a right to voice our personal opinions - we do not have the right to assert them as factual - unless we are willing to backup those assertions. 🙂

I hope this helps
 
I suspect that you didn’t understand my answer, but are too embarrassed to admit it. You don’t understand what argumentum ad hominem is either.
 
Doc_Keele said:
I suspect that you didn’t understand my answer, but are too embarrassed to admit it. You don’t understand what argumentum ad hominem is either.
Click to expand...
Then help me out 😃

Does legality outweigh morality? Use a simple yes or no, surely for an educated person, such as yourself, you know these English words - yes or no.

Well… you stated ’ You clearly don’t understand the English language]" This is an ad hominem - it doesn’t diminish my point.

If you wish to diminish my point - attack the point - not me.
I think I understand ad hominem 😛
Structure of the argument
Click to expand...
An ad hominem argument has the basic form:
Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person
1Therefore claim X is false
Click to expand...
The first premise is called a ‘factual claim’ and is the pivot point of much debate. The contention is referred to as an ‘inferential claim’ and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. The fallacy does not represent a valid form of reasoning because even if you accept both co-premises, that does not guarantee the truthfulness of the contention. This can also be thought of as the argument having an un-stated co-premise.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
 
Did you not understand my answer? Because if you did, there’s absolutely no need to keep repeating myself. If you didn’t understand my answer, then admit it instead of claiming I haven’t answered. It’s dishonest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top