Pro-lifer argument: "what if your parents decided to abort you?!"

[DSRilk]

There are no pro-life arguments.

Seeing that this is still a topic of contention and discussion in the US is evidence in itself that the US socially is a few decades behind on the rest of the modern world.

There is one key pro-life argument: at some point, we consider an entity human, and it is illegal to kill humans (generally speaking). The question is, when is a fetus/baby considered a human. You can argue that it's upon delivery, upon its ability to be self-sustaining outside the womb, upon its ability to survive with assistance outside the womb, when a certain level of brain function starts, when there's a heart beat, upon conception, etc. To say there's no pro-life argument to be made is ignorant, intentionally or otherwise. BTW, pro-choicer here.

- - - Updated - - -

Conservatives can't give a solid definition of what defines a person.

What is the "liberal's" solid definition of what defines a person? As a pro-choice liberal, I'd like to know what definition you think I am using.

[Noxx79]

If only the CDC tracked abortion statistics as well as reasons given for abortion.

If only adoption rates were tracked, as well as temporary foster care statistics.

If only manslaughter charges were even across the board. A man can be charged for feeding his SO a cocktail designed to force an abortion and be charged, a woman can walk into a clinic and have it done as a procedure. Its a life when its convenient.

Yes. Do you not understand how consent works? If I give you a dollar, it’s a gift. If you take a dollar, it’s theft. Neither changes the concept of a dollar.

Try a different argument.

[Hilhen7]

What is the "liberal's" solid definition of what defines a person? As a pro-choice liberal, I'd like to know what definition you think I am using.

Well my requirement is a person must be a sentient individual.

For example if your in a permanent vegetative state, I would no longer consider you a person. You would be a pile of flesh and bone at that point.

[DSRilk]

We're pretty open that there can be objectively determinative markers for when personhood could exist; the usual metric I've cited time and again is the emergence of coherent brain activity, typically around Week 21. It's the same marker we use to medically define the end of a life, so I feel it works fine to establish the beginning.

While it works for me, it only works for those people who do not subscribe to the idea that life is defined (at least in part) by the existence of a soul and that the soul exists "in" a fetus pre-coherent-brain-activity.

Unfortunately, there is really very little debate to be had. The core problem (at least here in the US) is that each side generally comes at the argument with a very different assumption about the definition of life.

[GrinningMan]

Yes. Do you not understand how consent works? If I give you a dollar, it’s a gift. If you take a dollar, it’s theft. Neither changes the concept of a dollar.

Try a different argument.

One party consent is still rape.

[DSRilk]

Well my requirement is a human being must be sentient.

For example if your in a permanent vegetative state, I would no longer consider you person. You would be a pile of flesh and bone at that point.

I'd generally agree, though I think there's a debate to be had regarding level of sentience. My point, however, was that liberals will not all subscribe to a singular definition any more than all conservatives would. That and in reality most pro-lifers I've met absolutely have a very specific definition of what defines a person. I just don't agree with them.

[Endus]

While it works for me, it only works for those people who do not subscribe to the idea that life is defined (at least in part) by the existence of a soul and that the soul exists "in" a fetus pre-coherent-brain-activity.

And that's why I keep referring to it as religious or pseudo-religious.

If you think there's a "soul", that's a spiritual argument, not an objective one. That's fine for you, but it has no business being raised as an argument to control the actions of others.

[crewskater]

I did not make a "no true Scotsman" argument.

I pointed out that if your argument is based on premises that are fundamentally faith-based, then you can't claim that your argument is secular and thus rational.

I'll grant that there's a narrow window where they may be making up non-religious imaginary things, but I really don't see the point in distinguishing between that and religious things, when from an outside perspective, they're essentially the same.



I feel like you're baiting me into saying "no", so you can link a fetal homicide law and proclaim victory.

When all doing so would do is demonstrate that you didn't read said law, which doesn't grant personhood to a fetus in the first place, doesn't apply to abortions, and so on.

- - - Updated - - -



This is, frankly, bullshit.

We're pretty open that there can be objectively determinative markers for when personhood could exist; the usual metric I've cited time and again is the emergence of coherent brain activity, typically around Week 21. It's the same marker we use to medically define the end of a life, so I feel it works fine to establish the beginning.

It's just irrelevant, since if you pushed as hard as you possibly could, this would push for late-term abortions to rely primarily on inducing birth, but late-term abortions are vanishingly rare to begin with and almost exclusively occur due to risks to the mother or malformations in the fetus, both of which would overrule that concern in those circumstances to begin with.

It's a silly question that doesn't really help argue for change, basically.

My question was simply to see if you are arguing from an objective standpoint or not. Judging by your second sentence I can see that you are not since you mentioned laws which are subjective. So, are you saying within the 1st trimester, causing a miscarriage is ok but anything after that is not? Sorry but the subject of abortion isn't black and white like you make it out to be.

A woman is going to get an abortion regardless of the law so it should be made safe for them. Personally, I oppose getting an abortion based on a moral position but I'm not going to stop them. My position has nothing to do with religion in any way. If you think killing an unborn child is moral, said person probably doesn’t care about morality or doesn't know anything about morals.

It's not at all silly because we need to decide when a life is a life and not whether you intended to have it or not. If the law is like you said it is, it's contradictory and makes little sense.

Conservatives can't give a solid definition of what defines a person. They say a fetus will develop into a human being if left alone, thus a fetus is a human being with full rights.

So does that mean a chicken egg is the same as a chicken? (So basically we all eat baby chickens?)

Is a caterpillar the same thing as a butterfly?

They should be able to be consistent with their logic right?

Same goes for liberals, how can it be murder if I cause someone to miscarry when they don't consider it a human or a baby. Neither side is completely right on this subject.

[DSRilk]

And that's why I keep referring to it as religious or pseudo-religious.

If you think there's a "soul", that's a spiritual argument, not an objective one. That's fine for you, but it has no business being raised as an argument to control the actions of others.

Agreed. The only problem is that they don't see it as a religious argument. It's simply fact in their eyes. Most importantly, unlike some things that people do that go against their faith, this is not one that is victimless. If someone commits adultery, that's a much more personal sin. Taking a life, however (as they see this), is not just a sin - it is something akin to murder, and thus a law (in their mind) is the only acceptable solution. I don't see an easy way to get them to buy into the argument that their religion should allow them to let this one go. The only solution as I see it is a dilution or dissolution of the general faith of the population. In the US, that's a bit of a way off, I'm afraid.

[Aurrora]

Conservatives can't give a solid definition of what defines a person. They say a fetus will develop into a human being if left alone, thus a fetus is a human being with full rights.

So does that mean a chicken egg is the same as a chicken? (So basically we all eat baby chickens?)

Is a caterpillar the same thing as a butterfly?

They should be able to be consistent with their logic right?

You realize we don’t eat fertilized eggs right?

That’s an interesting philosophical question though, I wonder what the intersection of vegans and pro-choice individuals looks like.

[DSRilk]

Same goes for liberals, how can it be murder if I cause someone to miscarry when they don't consider it a human or a baby. Neither side is completely right on this subject.

It doesn't have to be considered murder for it to carry a greater penalty. For example, if someone ran me over, they'd be responsible for my injuries. If they ran me over while I was carrying a television, they'd be responsible for both. Given the level of value a mother may put on her pregnancy, there is an argument to be made that causing someone to miscarry should carry a potentially heavy penalty. Then again, I'm a liberal who does not subscribe to it being equated with murder full out. It would be nice if people would stop assuming that there are two sides in this, each with a monolithic position.

[TJ]

There would be one fewer insanely handsome men in the world.

[s_bushido]

If only manslaughter charges were even across the board. A man can be charged for feeding his SO a cocktail designed to force an abortion and be charged, a woman can walk into a clinic and have it done as a procedure. Its a life when its convenient.

roflmao

"A man can be charged for rape if he has sex with a woman without her consent. A woman can choose to have sex with someone whenever she wants. It's not fair!!!"

[Has lost its way]

I'm clearly not, so you're just bullshitting, here.



1> No, it really isn't about that. There's no other instance where one human being's right to life would overrule another's right to their own body. Same reason we don't allow forced organ harvesting, in a nutshell. Even if we grant that it's a human life, it still doesn't justify a pro-life stance. And that's a big ask, to be frank.

2> Biologically, the same markers we use to determine end-of-life wouldn't qualify a fetus for start-of-life until around Week 21. And if you're not using some such objectively-determinative set of markers, you're making shit up. Which is where this becomes religious, or at least pseudo-religious; you make something up, without any basis in reality, and then demand everyone else agree with your fantasy.

On the last, though; feel free to try and objectively define the beginnings of personhood. Be warned that I will dismiss any qualifiers you use that are either not objective in nature, or which don't determine personhood in other contexts and thus cannot be considered to do so in this one. It has to be objective, because you're trying to convince me, and I'm not going to accept your opinion/preference as an argument. And it has to be a unique description, or you're not describing human personhood in the first place.

I will also point out ridiculous consequences of an argument, as needed, because if it creates ridiculous consequences, it's a bad definition.



They may profess to be secular, but their position on this particular subject is not rooted in an objective analysis of the facts at hand. Guaranteed.

Also, it's a bit silly to claim that the decline in religiosity is somehow a mark against me, when support for pro-life positions is also declining.

You keep arguing your pseudo religious beliefs at me in a attempt to sway my opinion...

I made my point already on when it starts. You keep trying to compare death to life as though the two are the same measuring stick. If you simply leave a healthy fetus undisturbed it will grow into a healthy child.

You can't argue around that last part and it sunders your argument apart. I understand that in your pseudo religious beliefs their is a magic number that makes a fetus a person but the rest of us will simply watch the cycle of life and realize it for what it is.

[Endus]

My question was simply to see if you are arguing from an objective standpoint or not. Judging by your second sentence I can see that you are not since you mentioned laws which are subjective.

What?

Laws are objectively defined. That's literally what law codes are.

The interpretation of how a particular case fits within those laws is subjective, but not the law itself, at all.

The rest of your post is predicated on this error, so I'm not bothering with it.

[Has lost its way]

Agreed. The only problem is that they don't see it as a religious argument. It's simply fact in their eyes. Most importantly, unlike some things that people do that go against their faith, this is not one that is victimless. If someone commits adultery, that's a much more personal sin. Taking a life, however (as they see this), is not just a sin - it is something akin to murder, and thus a law (in their mind) is the only acceptable solution. I don't see an easy way to get them to buy into the argument that their religion should allow them to let this one go. The only solution as I see it is a dilution or dissolution of the general faith of the population. In the US, that's a bit of a way off, I'm afraid.

I don't really see the religious side of it..?

What god have I invoked by making the argument that a healthy fetus will grow into a healthy child?

[crewskater]

It doesn't have to be considered murder for it to carry a greater penalty. For example, if someone ran me over, they'd be responsible for my injuries. If they ran me over while I was carrying a television, they'd be responsible for both. Given the level of value a mother may put on her pregnancy, there is an argument to be made that causing someone to miscarry should carry a potentially heavy penalty. Then again, I'm a liberal who does not subscribe to it being equated with murder full out. It would be nice if people would stop assuming that there are two sides in this, each with a monolithic position.

I think a better example would be is if you compared getting ran over by your mom instead of using a tv which is completely irrelevant. Why is it ok for your mom to run you over but not me? It really should be all or nothing in this case.

[Endus]

You keep arguing your pseudo religious beliefs at me in a attempt to sway my opinion...

I get that you're baiting me, but it's pretty low-effort, dude.

I made my point already on when it starts.

You just declared it, without justification.

Without justification, it can be summarily dismissed without consideration. It doesn't mean anything.

You keep trying to compare death to life as though the two are the same measuring stick.

No, I'm comparing the start of personhood to the end of personhood, since those are the only points where personhood changes from "yea" to "nay" or vice versa. It's the only legitimate comparison there is.

If you simply leave a healthy fetus undisturbed it will grow into a healthy child.

You do not know this. This is you claiming prophetic powers to see the future, and I don't consider claims of magical foresight to be a valid basis for anything.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't really see the religious side of it..?

What god have I invoked by making the argument that a healthy fetus will grow into a healthy child?

You haven't invoked a god.

You have claimed the ability to foretell the future with perfect precision.

Oracles and such have traditionally been religious expressions, y'know.

[Acidbaron]

I don't really see the religious side of it..?

What god have I invoked by making the argument that a healthy fetus will grow into a healthy child?

Christians believe in a fantasy called the soul. Because jezus who came from an adultress or worse instead got a soul injected from the moment she got pregnant.

Muslims Don't believe in that that's why you have less irrational fearmongering in that religion.

[Maxilian]

I mean that's a bit edgy to say, but the fact remains that being aborted prior to having a consciousness would not have inconvenienced you in the slightest.

This, that's why my answer is always "Not like i would say anything against that, nor you if you were aborted"