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

[qwerty123456]

What I find the most funny about the pro lifers is that most tend to be religious and also not want certain types increasing their populations in the US. Shouldn't you be offering them half off abortions then? If you think its a sin its not like letting people get abortions if they want would be your sin it would be theirs. And if you don't want them in the US why would you want them in heaven with you?

To those who aren't the religious conservatives don't you realize that more humans equals more suffering? And if you aren't religious what right does an "almost human" have to life over that of any other species? Cause I'm sure you are not raising the baby mouse you found in the garage after you killed its parents.

[seta-san]

abortion is a right that becomes less justifiable everyday. you can't abort someone who is already born.. so there's already a hardline for what constitutes a person.. but it blurs. can you abort a baby that is already in middle of being delivered(9 months, the water has broken, contractions have started). if you are against this, which is typically called "partial birth abortion" then where do you put the line? a week before full term? 2 weeks? 2 months? "Viability"? Once you've gotten a person back to viability you've just made abortion illegal. a baby has survived being born at just 21 weeks, 5 days. as technology improves that time will work it's way further and further back into the pregnancy until they make artificial wombs. at that point there's no moral excuse for destroying a developing baby.

[Nfinitii]

My response to that argument: what if I wish that they did?

It’s a terrible argument but it doesn’t mean pro life is wrong.

[Endus]

Is your counter argument really summed up by you can't tell something is healthy unless your a witch?

Drop the hyperbole and just make the point your trying to make.

What hyperbole?

The existence of a healthy fetus today does not mean there will be a healthy child in the future. You're claiming you can see that future, and using that psychic prediction as the basis for denying women the right to abort.

When if said fetus was aborted, that child would never exist. You are begging the question; presuming the outcome of your conclusion as a premise in your argument. That is irrational and renders your argument invalid. Over and above the claim of psychic foretelling. Which, I'll repeat, is not hyperbole; you are literally claiming you can see the future. Yes, that's ridiculous, and that's why I'm asking you to cut it out.

[Logwyn]

What if Hitler's mother decided to have an abortion?

1 abortion could have saved millions of lives!

See I can appeal to emotions to...

Or you could have kidnapped the baby Hitler. Not that it would have made a difference Great Man fallacy and all that. Changed things some but not as the way you suggest.



If I had been aborted. I'd have just cycled into another body, not the one I have now.

[Endus]

abortion is a right that becomes less justifiable everyday. you can't abort someone who is already born.. so there's already a hardline for what constitutes a person.. but it blurs. can you abort a baby that is already in middle of being delivered(9 months, the water has broken, contractions have started). if you are against this, which is typically called "partial birth abortion" then where do you put the line? a week before full term? 2 weeks? 2 months? "Viability"? Once you've gotten a person back to viability you've just made abortion illegal. a baby has survived being born at just 21 weeks, 5 days. as technology improves that time will work it's way further and further back into the pregnancy until they make artificial wombs. at that point there's no moral excuse for destroying a developing baby.

Pretty much the only time partial birth abortions occur is when it's necessary to save the mother's life.

In which case, yeah. Right choice.

And like I and others have said; you're not making an argument about abortion. You're making an argument for inducing birth or removing the fetus intact, rather than waiting for a natural birth, as opposed to other abortion methods. I don't have an issue with that; I'd consider those the medically ethical option at that point, generally.

[Has lost its way]

If it is not alive, how can I kill it? My argument is that if it's not alive now, it cannot be murder. Therefore, before 21 weeks, it should be fine to have an abortion.
It's a pretty acceptable argument actually. Yours is basically: it will become a person, so killing it now, is murder! Which is well... Weird.

I see the concept of making it a separate entity despite it being the same one as a way to comfort people about the choice they are making. Lets be honest here if something is going to be a child until you have a surgery to tear it apart and pull it free it is really just a coping mechanism to avoid admitting yourself you killed a child because it would be a inconvenience.

- - - Updated - - -

What hyperbole?

The existence of a healthy fetus today does not mean there will be a healthy child in the future. You're claiming you can see that future, and using that psychic prediction as the basis for denying women the right to abort.

When if said fetus was aborted, that child would never exist. You are begging the question; presuming the outcome of your conclusion as a premise in your argument. That is irrational and renders your argument invalid. Over and above the claim of psychic foretelling. Which, I'll repeat, is not hyperbole; you are literally claiming you can see the future. Yes, that's ridiculous, and that's why I'm asking you to cut it out.

If that is the case are you saying you believe that a healthy fetus won't develop into a healthy child...?

Yes you are right there are things that can go wrong and I am not arguing against acting if they do but the argument you are making is akin to saying you would be surprised corn would grow if you planted corn seeds,

It isn't prophecy fulfilled to expect that.

[Ghostpanther]

If it is not alive, how can I kill it? My argument is that if it's not alive now, it cannot be murder. Therefore, before 21 weeks, it should be fine to have an abortion.
It's a pretty acceptable argument actually. Yours is basically: it will become a person, so killing it now, is murder! Which is well... Weird.

Sure it is alive. A heartbeat can be detected at 6 weeks. You saying if the fetus has a heartbeat, it is still not alive? What is making the heart beat? Magic?

[Aurrora]

Go read them again.

Here's a hint; if a fetus was already considered a person, those fetal homicide acts wouldn't exist, because they'd already be covered under existing homicide laws.

That they exist at all argues concretely against the conclusion you want to draw.

Seriously? Your argument hinges on an archaic definition of personhood that is unlikely to be changed due to bureaucratic inertia and the ramifications it would have on the abortion debate.

Ala. Code § 13A-6-1 (2006) defines "person," for the purpose of criminal homicide or assaults, to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability and specifies that nothing in the act shall make it a crime to perform or obtain an abortion that is otherwise legal.

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-5419 "Alexa's Law" defines "unborn child" as a living individual organism of the species Homo sapiens, in utero, at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth. The law specifies that "person" and "human being" shall also mean an unborn child as used in Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-5401 through § 21-5406 and § 21-5413 which define murder in the first and second degrees, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, battery, aggravated battery, capital murder and involuntary manslaughter while driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. (2010 HB 2668)

Commonwealth vs. Lawrence, 536 N.E.2d 571 (Mass. 1973) affirms the conviction for murder of a woman and involuntary manslaughter of her 27-week-old fetus.
Commonwealth vs. Cass, 467 N.E.2d 1324 (Mass. 1984) rules that a viable fetus is within the ambit of the term "person" in the vehicular homicide statute. The case refers to Mass. Gen Law, ch. 90 § 24G, which defines vehicular homicide.

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 750.323 declares that any person who administers medicines, drugs or substances to any woman pregnant with a quick child or uses an instrument or other means to destroy the child, unless the same shall have been necessary to preserve the life of the mother, is guilty of manslaughter.

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.210 defines manslaughter as a person who willfully kills an unborn quick child by any injury committed upon the mother of the child.

Definition of manslaughter
: the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice

Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-37 provides a list of the criminal offenses, including murder, homicide and assault, in which the definition of “human being” includes an unborn child at every stage of gestation from conception to live birth. 2011 Miss. Laws, Chap. 307 amended the law by changing the punishments for the defined offenses.

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2903.01 et seq. (2002) define aggravated murder, murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, aggravated vehicular homicide, aggravated vehicular assault, felonious assault, aggravated assault, assault and negligent assault. The law applies to a person, which includes an "unborn member of the species Homo sapiens, who is or was carried in the womb of another."

Definition of murder (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Scott Peterson was found guilty of two counts of murder for the killing of his wife and her unborn child.

And since this literally does not happen, it's pretty blatantly obvious that you're wrong.

Miscarriages are not treated as homicides.

It happens.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/07/misc-j06.html

Violence can cause miscarriages, the people that commit that violence are charged with homicide, is is literally the purpose of fetal homicide laws.

Michigan man charged with killing girlfriend’s unborn baby

Police: Oklahoma man faces murder charge after assault on pregnant girlfriend

[Sluvs]

I see the concept of making it a separate entity despite it being the same one as a way to comfort people about the choice they are making. Lets be honest here if something is going to be a child until you have a surgery to tear it apart and pull it free it is really just a coping mechanism to avoid admitting yourself you killed a child because it would be a inconvenience.

- - - Updated - - -



If that is the case are you saying you believe that a healthy fetus won't develop into a healthy child...?

Yes you are right there are things that can go wrong and I am not arguing against acting if they do but the argument you are making is akin to saying you would be surprised corn would grow if you planted corn seeds,

It isn't prophecy fulfilled to expect that.

But... it's not. It's literally not. You are not being honest, if you were honest you would say: I cannot kill which is not alive yet. Simple as that. It's not a coping mechanism at all. Science points that it only shows signs of life way later, that is a fact. You are equating fetus to baby when both are really not interchangeable. You are saying that just because it "will" be a child eventually, it should be automatically be treated as such from the very beginning, and that does not make sense. You treat thing as they are now, not as they might be in the future.

[Doctor Amadeus]

@Ghostpanther

OMG dude what have you been doing,

[Sluvs]

Sure it is alive. A heartbeat can be detected at 6 weeks. You saying if the fetus has a heartbeat, it is still not alive? What is making the heart beat? Magic?

Heartbeat does not mean something is alive. A heart beat indicate only one thing, that blood is being pumped by a muscle. That is it. We are accostumed to associate a heart with life (due to our culture and it's representation throughout time) and what not, but if you truly think about it, it is just a muscle, nothing more, nothing less.

Just because a fetus has a heartbeat, it does not mean it is alive.

What defines life, biologically speaking, is brain activity.

[Ghostpanther]

Heartbeat does not mean something is alive. A heart beat indicate only one thing, that blood is being pumped by a muscle. That is it. We are accostumed to associate a heart with life (due to our culture and it's representation throughout time) and what not, but if you truly think about it, it is just a muscle, nothing more, nothing less.

Just because a fetus has a heartbeat, it does not mean it is alive.

What defines life, biologically speaking, is brain activity.

Can they declare someone dead if the heart is still beating? They will pull the plug if they are brain dead. But as long as that heart is beating, they are considered still alive. Once there is no detectable heart beat, they can declare them dead. Otherwise, by law, you are committing murder if you take them to the morgue while the heart is still beating.:P

[Doctor Amadeus]

And some PETA extremists think eating meat is murder.

That wouldn't justify them killing butchers to "save the cows". And you know why? Because their opinion is definitively, objectively wrong. Opinions aren't magically immune from being beholden to reality. If your opinion flies in the face of basic definitions, you're just wrong. Period. And if you won't change that opinion when this is pointed out, you're stubbornly, obstinately wrong. It isn't an argument.

Abortion is, definitively, not "murder". It can't be. The claim is as nonsense as saying that the Earth is flat or that 2 plus 2 is 5. It's just wrong, and doesn't deserve any consideration.

I'm not going to entertain people's counterfactual delusions and disinformation, and that's really all this boils down to. It's not a difference of opinion; they're lying, and want me to agree with their lie. Since it's a lie, I'm not going to.

Only on the one point, I think I do get what you mean but the part in bold "NO I AM NOT ADVOCATING MURDER IS OK"


However if someone thought that, then yes, the result would make sense, granted if someone was that off, we would likely commit someone like that, as they did with John Holmes, but there could be some argument that KFC is like the Holocaust.

I mean I don't think that, but the thing is if you GO WITH the logic or even lack of it the reasoning makes sense

[ohwell]

its up to the women people...

Sure just ensure that a man can kill the baby after it's born then since he can be forced to deal with the financial burden of HIS actions for 18 or more years and the emotional burden for the rest of his life. I mean that's fair. The woman had a choice then and many people say a newborn isn't even conscious in this thread. So if a woman can abort a man's baby without his consent, the man should be able to kill the newborn without a woman's consent.

- - - Updated - - -

Seriously? Your argument hinges on an archaic definition of personhood that is unlikely to be changed due to bureaucratic inertia and the ramifications it would have on the abortion debate.










Scott Peterson was found guilty of two counts of murder for the killing of his wife and her unborn child.



It happens.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/07/misc-j06.html

Violence can cause miscarriages, the people that commit that violence are charged with homicide, is is literally the purpose of fetal homicide laws.

Michigan man charged with killing girlfriend’s unborn baby

Police: Oklahoma man faces murder charge after assault on pregnant girlfriend

He loves to call things like that archaic except when it suits his argument or is about Islam's culture.

[Ghostpanther]

@Ghostpanther

OMG dude what have you been doing,

Expressing my pro-life convictions. Hard when I can not use my spiritual foundations for my beliefs. But I been good I think at avoiding it. Not really concerned about changing any one's mind on the subject. Most never will. But expressing my own stance and people are free to disagree. As long as they are respectful in doing so, I do not mind disagreements. I never get upset with those who disagree with me.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Heartbeat does not mean something is alive. A heart beat indicate only one thing, that blood is being pumped by a muscle. That is it. We are accostumed to associate a heart with life (due to our culture and it's representation throughout time) and what not, but if you truly think about it, it is just a muscle, nothing more, nothing less.

Just because a fetus has a heartbeat, it does not mean it is alive.

What defines life, biologically speaking, is brain activity.

Name one non-living entity that has an active muscle.

Also, your 'biological' definition of life is wrong.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Expressing my pro-life convictions. Hard when I can not use my spiritual foundations for my beliefs. But I been good I think at avoiding it. Not really concerned about changing any one's mind on the subject. Most never will. But expressing my own stance and people are free to disagree. As long as they are respectful in doing so, I do not mind disagreements. I never get upset with those who disagree with me.

Fair enough, looking and imagining all the smiles on faces. Since I last checked HOLY, seen this

Not for both cases. The raped girl is a tragic event. But that still does not give us the right to end a life because of it. And where in hell did you get the thought I would support sending a woman to jail for having a miscarriage? That is not something she has any control over.

Hahaha holy shit GP WTF! Don't spread the love all in one place.

[ohwell]

Name one non-living entity that has an active muscle.

And that should end the "life" part, but then they'll come back and say consciousness is the determiner once their "alive" is no longer something they can argue against.....except it's criminal to kill someone's pet in many states

[Sluvs]

Can they declare someone dead if the heart is still beating? They will pull the plug if they are brain dead. But as long as that heart is beating, they are considered still alive. Once there is no detectable heart beat, they can declare them dead. Otherwise, by law, you are committing murder if you take them to the morgue while the heart is still beating.:P

The fact that the heart is instrumental to keeping a system alive is of little importance in this discussion because a system is not a life. If it's not connected to a meaningful nervous system, how could it be? In fact, just the fact that pull the plug on brain dead patients shows what is really important here, not the heart, but the brain. There is also a reason why the words brain DEAD are used.