Being pro-life is utterly untenable and stupid

[cybrsage]

If your Pro-Life, shouldn't you be against the death penalty?

Not when pro-life means you are against killing unborn humans.

Abortion is killing an unborn human is killing an innocent - someone who has committed no crime ever.
The death penality is killing a convicted murderer.

The difference is huge.

Someone can logically be pro-life and pro-death penalty. The logical inconsistency comes in when someone is pro-abortion and anti-death penalty...they want to kill the innocent and spare the guilty.

 

[micrometers]

Cool story bro. So you're saying that abortion is bad because trashy drug addicts decided to have a kid b/c of welfare benefits. Great logic. Frankly, the Kohl's robbing addicts are a great example of why eugenics and forced sterilization are needed.

The poor kid will likely have a terrible life thanks to his/her drug addict parents. And he/she will likely end up being a drag on the rest of us. Fantastic.

 

[micrometers]

Not when pro-life means you are against killing unborn humans.

Abortion is killing an unborn human is killing an innocent - someone who has committed no crime ever.
The death penality is killing a convicted murderer.

The difference is huge.

Someone can logically be pro-life and pro-death penalty. The logical inconsistency comes in when someone is pro-abortion and anti-death penalty...they want to kill the innocent and spare the guilty.

Two things:

1. the pro-life appeal is often coached in mystical "magic of life" language. Except they lack any appreciation for the "magic of life" for just about anything else. it really is the ultimate in misdirection since I believe that most people become "pro-life" at the behest of charismatic religious preachers who use "magic of life" language to trick them.

2. The abortion debate is entirely metaphysical, with one group of people wanting to impose their definition of metaphysics on everyone else, through legal means of the government. Issues of murder of existing humans is not concrete and factual.

 

[soundforbjt]

Not when pro-life means you are against killing unborn humans.

Abortion is killing an unborn human is killing an innocent - someone who has committed no crime ever.
The death penality is killing a convicted murderer.

The difference is huge.

Someone can logically be pro-life and pro-death penalty. The logical inconsistency comes in when someone is pro-abortion and anti-death penalty...they want to kill the innocent and spare the guilty.

What about those killed in prison who were innocent?

Here's what I don't understand about some pro-lifers, they'll fight like crazy to make sure a child is born, but then they want nothing to do with making sure it's supported after.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I would object to the term "unconsensual pregnancy." If a person consents to sexual intercourse, they thereby consent to the natural biological conditions that could arise from it.

But this is of course false. Waivers to fundamental rights must be explicit. You might as well suggest that drivers involved in traffic collisions do not have grounds for claims with their insurance companies -- since after all, a collision is something that could arise from operating a vehicle on public motorways.

If I consent to drinking from the same glass as someone with a cold, I am consenting to the possibility that I, too, may contract a cold.

Consenting to the possibility of something is not the same as consenting to the thing that is possible. This should be obvious. It is possible that I could be struck by a falling airplane when I go outside for a walk. I am not consenting to be struck by said plane when I consent to its possibility by going outside.

 

[cybrsage]

Two things:

1. the pro-life appeal is often coached in mystical "magic of life" language. Except they lack any appreciation for the "magic of life" for just about anything else.

2. The abortion debate is entirely metaphysical, with one group of people wanting to impose their definition of metaphysics on everyone else, through legal means of the government. Issues of murder of existing humans is not concrete and factual.

Many people do, but it is not needed...and it not really even metaphysical. The unborn human is still a human...a 100% unique human who simply has not yet been born.

Being born is where the legal line has been placed to determine personhood - which is a requirement for any rights at all. Much of the debate is simply a discussion about if that is the correct place for the line to be at, or if it should be earlier.

Both sides usually end up falling into the emotional appeals trap, which clouds the issue and prevents any meaningful discussion.

IMO, abortion should not be legal except in the case where the mother will die and that resulting death will also kill the child. I believe all attempts to save both the mother and child should be made, even if we expect the child to not live after extraction from the mother.

Abortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn human...if the human is removed knowing it will almost certainly die, but the intent is to try and prevent the human's death, then it is fully acceptable and is then no different than any other risky operation.

 

[cybrsage]

What about those killed in prison who were innocent?

What about those who died in prison from a life sentence who were innocent?

We do the best we can, it is all we can do. We cannot expect perfection from a sytem which cannot be perfect.

 

[soundforbjt]

Many people do, but it is not needed...and it not really even metaphysical. The unborn human is still a human...a 100% unique human who simply has not yet been born.

Being born is where the legal line has been placed to determine personhood - which is a requirement for any rights at all. Much of the debate is simply a discussion about if that is the correct place for the line to be at, or if it should be earlier.

Both sides usually end up falling into the emotional appeals trap, which clouds the issue and prevents any meaningful discussion.

IMO, abortion should not be legal except in the case where the mother will die and that resulting death will also kill the child. I believe all attempts to save both the mother and child should be made, even if we expect the child to not live after extraction from the mother.

Abortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn human...if the human is removed knowing it will almost certainly die, but the intent is to try and prevent the human's death, then it is fully acceptable and is then no different than any other risky operation.

So, no exceptions for rape and incest?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Abortion is killing an unborn human is killing an innocent - someone who has committed no crime ever.

An unwelcome fetus is violating the body of the mother. No person, born or unborn, has the right to occupy the body of another person against that person's will, nor a right to inject that person's body with hormones and waste while forcibly extracting the totality of it's sustenance from that same person.

Someone can logically be pro-life and pro-death penalty. The logical inconsistency comes in when someone is pro-abortion and anti-death penalty...they want to kill the innocent and spare the guilty.

Can you tell me the difference between being "pro-abortion" and "pro-choice"? Roughly what percentage of the population is "pro-abortion" and what percentage is "pro-choice."?

Are you "pro-inserting-a-penis-in-your-rectum"? Do you think people should be free to choose to have a penis inserted in their own rectum if they want to?

 

[micrometers]

The unborn human is still a human...a 100% unique human who simply has not yet been born.

that is a METAPHYSICAL STATEMENT. It is not factual. It is an opinion.

Part 2 of my argument is utilitarian: that in a world of 7 billion people, overpopulation is greatest threat to survival, since almost all the problems of this world come from overpopulation. as such, metaphysical concerns about abortion are silly.

 

[micrometers]

So, no exceptions for rape and incest?

pro-lifers view those as too-wide loopholes. So no.

 

[cybrsage]

An unwelcome fetus is violating the body of the mother. No person, born or unborn, has the right to occupy the body of another person against that person's will, nor a right to inject that person's body with hormones and waste while forcibly extracting the totality of it's sustenance from that same person.

Now you are being stupid.

Can you tell me the difference between being "pro-abortion" and "pro-choice"? Roughly what percentage of the population is "pro-abortion" and what percentage is "pro-choice."?

pro-abortion and pro-choice are the same thing.

 

[cybrsage]

that is a METAPHYSICAL STATEMENT. It is not factual. It is an opinion.

For this to not be factual, humans must start their life as non-humans and then, at some point, change species and become humans.

Humans are humans from the moment of conception. The newly created cell is a 100% unique human dna expression. It is not a different species.

These is all easily verified facts.

 

[cybrsage]

So, no exceptions for rape and incest?

I would not imprison a person's offspring if his parent commited a crime, so why would I support killing a person's offspring for the crimes committed by the parent?

 

[soundforbjt]

For this to not be factual, humans must start their life as non-humans and then, at some point, change species and become humans.

Humans are humans from the moment of conception. The newly created cell is a 100% unique human dna expression. It is not a different species.

These is all easily verified facts.

Do you believe that life begins at conception?

 

[xj0hnx]

I would not imprison a person's offspring if his parent commited a crime, so why would I support killing a person's offspring for the crimes committed by the parent?

Raped mother's right to not have child of rape > rapist rights, that is if you even believe that the rapist was raping to produce a child.

 

[cybrsage]

Raped mother's right to not have child of rape > rapist rights, that is if you even believe that the rapist was raping to produce a child.

You obviously think it is OK to kill a human if that human's father rapes a woman. I think that is a terrible position to hold.

 

[micrometers]

Pro-choicers allow room for personal belief. IE, if a religious couple forbid abortion for their daughter, that is okay. What they object to is efforts to use the state to forbid abortion for everyone. In that way they are objectively better than pro-lifers.

also, I'm sure everyone has heard of highly religious people actually getting abortions, and the hypocrisy is a tacit acceptance of the utilitarian argument I laid out about potential life not mattering, since you never knew them.

 

[soundforbjt]

why would I support killing a person's offspring for the crimes committed by the parent?

So, the mother commited a crime by being raped?

 

[micrometers]

I would not imprison a person's offspring if his parent commited a crime, so why would I support killing a person's offspring for the crimes committed by the parent?

so the "magic of life" is a man holding a knife to a woman while he brutally rapes her. Uh-huh. Spelled it out for ya.

 

[micrometers]

For this to not be factual, humans must start their life as non-humans and then, at some point, change species and become humans.

Humans are humans from the moment of conception. The newly created cell is a 100% unique human dna expression. It is not a different species.

These is all easily verified facts.

By that logic I am committing murder every time I cut my hair.

The big picture is that reproductive health and birth control are a major way to make a better world.

 

[xj0hnx]

You obviously think it is OK to kill a human if that human's father rapes a woman. I think that is a terrible position to hold.

I sure do, just like I think it perfectly fine to kill someone that decides to take another's life. The only abortion I am against is abortion of convenience, you choose to have sex, then you should accept the consequences of that decision. The mother didn't make a choice to be raped, and since she is the one that has to bear the burden of the product of that rape, it's perfectly fine for her to terminate it.

 

[cybrsage]

Do you believe that life begins at conception?

The problem we have with the definition of life is that there actually isn't a good one, so the rest is just my own opinion.

When speaking of humans, I place it at the point where the human can continue the needed cell creation to become a viable human. That would be the point where the human attaches to the walls of the uterous. Prior to that, the human has a short time available before it runs out of raw materials to create more cells.

I suppose one could say conception is the line where life starts, since the cells are self replicating...but since it is not sustainable, I do not place it there.

 

[cybrsage]

I sure do, just like I think it perfectly fine to kill someone that decides to take another's life.

So you think that the kids of everyone convicted of rape should be round up and executed? That is horrific.

 

[micrometers]

I sure do, just like I think it perfectly fine to kill someone that decides to take another's life. The only abortion I am against is abortion of convenience, you choose to have sex, then you should accept the consequences of that decision. The mother didn't make a choice to be raped, and since she is the one that has to bear the burden of the product of that rape, it's perfectly fine for her to terminate it.

I'd rather not punish her for that.

More to the point, I'd also rather not have to run into her offspring on the street, or see him on the six o'clock news.