The pro-life common sense clincher

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Doc Keele

Your premise that all arguments for abortion advocate the taking of innocent life is questionable.

Why?

Also your argument is not valid, because if you don’t follow an deontological approach then the lesser of two evils can be morally acceptable.

The greater of two evils can never be morally acceptable. Which is the greater of two evils: To bear a child you don’t want? Or to kill a child you don’t want?

Have you heard of Sophie’s Choice?

Please stay on topic, or start a new thread for Sophie’s Choice. Thanks.
 
Sophie’s Choice is very definitely on-topic actually. If you want to pick and choose which arguments people get to use, then of course you will “win”.

One argument re abortion is that the foetus is not yet a person. So that argument denies that abortion is the taking of innocent life.

It’s your position that the greater of two evils is never morally acceptable. That is a position that I imagine everyone would agree with. I can’t think of any argument against it, it is self-evident. It is a truism.

Which is the greater evil, having your autonomy infringed or having an abortion? That will depend on who you ask. This is where the unconscious violinist comes in, to draw out ones intuition about which is more important, autonomy or preservation of life.
 
Sophie’s Choice is very definitely on-topic actually. If you want to pick and choose which arguments people get to use, then of course you will “win”.

Sophie’s Choice has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. I chose the topic and so long as you stay on topic I don’t mind which aguments you use. 👍
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Has anyone ever found an approach to explaining the pro-life position that would leave the pro-choice advocates without a leg to stand on? I mean a *really convincing case *that can stop all discussion dead in its tracks because the pro-choicers have no answer?
Click to expand...
im way late to the thread, but has anyone brought it up as a civil rights issue? we have given civil rights to every classification of human being except those not yet born, i see no reason to deny them their civil rights based on their age or location. civil rights must include a right to life, or all other rights are moot. anybody said that yet?
 
I use the following line.

Human rights for all, not just for the chosen.

The “pro-choice” types probably won’t get it, but if you explain that when you take away someone’s life you take away all their rights, they may get a clue.

Imagine a society where you have to get permission from your mother to have human rights.
 
How’s this?

I use the following line.

Human rights for all, not just for the chosen.

The “pro-choice” types probably won’t get it, but if you explain that when you take away someone’s life you take away all their rights, they may get a clue.

Imagine a society where you have to get permission from your mother to have human rights.
 
BobCatholic said:
How’s this?

I use the following line.

Human rights for all, not just for the chosen.

The “pro-choice” types probably won’t get it, but if you explain that when you take away someone’s life you take away all their rights, they may get a clue.

Imagine a society where you have to get permission from your mother to have human rights.
Click to expand...
i cant think of a single rational reason to deny rights to a child not yet born. there is nothing about an obstreticians hands that confer rights like some secular baptism. either they apply to all, even the least of us, or they apply to no one.
 
warpspeedpetey said:
i cant think of a single rational reason to deny rights to a child not yet born. there is nothing about an obstreticians hands that confer rights like some secular baptism. either they apply to all, even the least of us, or they apply to no one.
Click to expand...
The pro-abortion position is irrational. It is based on hatred and bigotry.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Sophie’s Choice is very definitely on-topic actually. If you want to pick and choose which arguments people get to use, then of course you will “win”.

Sophie’s Choice has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. I chose the topic and so long as you stay on topic I don’t mind which aguments you use. 👍
Click to expand...
You choose which arguments are used. So if you decide it’s not relevant, it doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks. I can very easily demonstrate the relevance of Sophie’s choice, it goes to the heart of the matter.
So you’re not actually interested in having a robust discussion. As long as I’m clear about that:thumbsup:
It saves me wasting my time.
 
BobCatholic said:
How’s this?

I use the following line.

Human rights for all, not just for the chosen.

The “pro-choice” types probably won’t get it, but if you explain that when you take away someone’s life you take away all their rights, they may get a clue.

Imagine a society where you have to get permission from your mother to have human rights.
Click to expand...
Well then you’ve missed the points that have been made many times about the justification of the pro-choice position.
Your position is incoherent when you examine it closely.
 
BobCatholic
*
The “pro-choice” types probably won’t get it, but if you explain that when you take away someone’s life you take away all their rights, they may get a clue.*

This is a very good point. I wish the “pro-choice” people would call themselves what they are … “pro-death.” It isn’t as if "“pro-choice” is a hallowed phrase that should excuse everything.

We cannot be “pro-choice” about paying our taxes. Why should we be “pro-choice” about killing our children?
 
Doc_Keele said:
Well then you’ve missed the points that have been made many times about the justification of the pro-choice position.
Your position is incoherent when you examine it closely.
Click to expand...
given your signature then, i suppose you have a formal ‘philosophical’ argument. i assume you mean one from the field of logic, else they would be rhetoric.

what then is this formal ‘philosophical’ argument that you have to support your position?
 
BobCatholic said:
The pro-abortion position is irrational. It is based on hatred and bigotry.
Click to expand...
i agree, its irrational, i have yet to see an argument consistent with any of our (American) values. i think it is simply a matter of the political power of far left feminists, and as their generation dies off, abortions irrational nature will become more and more evident to those without a dog in the fight. as we fully integrate people into our society, i suspect that there wont be a political base much longer to really support abortion. while our pro-life base is not dependent on a single generation or ideology. we can simply outlast them.

i dont give it another 30- or 40 years. the last of that generation will be dead and long gone, feminism as a moderate position will be moot because womens place in society will be equal. their goals will have been achieved. they get closer everyday. without the very far left of feminism that supports abortion, it cannot survive the overwhelming tide of moderation that will result in the following generation.

it is only a matter of time. Life always wins.
 
Worthy5

No, the " Pro-choice" position is based on the policy of limited use of the govt police ppower.

So, presumably you would support the use of government police power to stop terrorists from killing citizens, but you would not support the same use of government police power to stop physician-butchers from killing our children?

How is that logical? How is that common sense?
 
warpspeedpetey said:
whatever one you hold.
Click to expand...
My interest in formal philosophical arguments is partly because I am trying to construct arguments for my position. So I haven’t got a finished product yet.

My position is a pro-life one, but not from a moral absolutist standpoint - because my intuition is that doing nothing in certain situations is wrong. Sophie’s Choice is a good illustration of this.
 
Doc Keele

My position is a pro-life one, but not from a moral absolutist standpoint - because my intuition is that doing nothing in certain situations is wrong. Sophie’s Choice is a good illustration of this.

That has nothing to do with a mother choosing to abort a child. Choosing to abort a child is choosing to do something, not choosing to do nothing. Choosing not to have an abortion is also a choice, and the right one. 👍
 
You’re missing the point entirely, Charlemagne. You don’t even know the point I was going to make, yet you jump in with both feet. Never mind.🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top