Comments by "King Orange" (@kingorange7739) on "Big Think"
channel.
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@EnlightenedByKnowledge
1. I never said the law doesn't mean anything. If I thought that than my only reason to follow it would solely be to avoid consequences. I said it was not relevant to the argument unless u were to put in an application that reinforces ur point that came before and without a direct connection to Roe v. Wade.
2. The motives are not the point. I don't care if ur killing an innocent human being for a self righteous purpose or to simply steal their wallet. It doesn't change what their doing. Also the irony is that Nazis and Slave owners used the same rationality that Pro abortion people use now. That it is not a full human being because of x versus y.
3. Yep I do because regardless if they do or not, they know the risk coming in. Not to even mention that 46% abortion mothers don't even use contraceptions and some of the 54% that do don't use them consistent or correctly.
4. It is not a matter of consequence but rather that she should not be allowed the separate act of killing an innocent being for happened previously when it is not at fault. But in the case of them being careless then sure. :)
5. That right to life means that it (As an innocent human being) cannot be taken without consequence. Again by all means if ur better alternative is to punish women after the abortion then that would be acceptable but not ideal since like I said before, the goal of pro life is to prevent abortion not simply punish for the act.
6. Yep
7. I do. Obviously problems and issues would follow suit like any change to things would. When slavery became outlawed, problems followed with that as well. Doesn't mean the action should not had been taken. Also those problems that would follow would be allowed to be worked out since the core issue would be set behind us once when abortion is made illegal. Because once when that safety net is gone then people will have no choice but to work out the other issues and problems.
8. Again I have made my stance clear. I'm not going to say that everything with the logic is perfect, but it does have better consistency than what the pro choice argument can say. I mean for goodness sake, pro choice members can't even agree when the cutoff point should be.
9. Saying a Spectrum of whether one truly, fully knows or not does not mean jack. Ever heard the saying better safe than sorry? It would be the same as driving in a dark night and while driving u see a figure ahead that u think might be a person. Do u A, Slow/stop the car to make sure u know for sure, or B keep driving and risk hitting what may or may not be ahead of u. If ur answer is A then then its the same principle is the arguments against the spectrum.
10. I mean for the most part, yes. Obviously an adult can vote and has certain rights inherent to adults but as far as a right to live. Yes I consider them equal.
My opinion did change once. It is why I'm here. I use to live with that mentality especially while depressed on why anyone should care about a being that didn't know it was living, or could feel pain, or could think. That thought changed when I realized both the logic gaps that it had since many of those things could be applied to adults but also because I realized that without conception, there would be no consistent line to draw on a life being protected. That the line of when killing is ok would continue to expand as it already has. This is why states still allow third trimester abortions at request and how people like the governor of Virginia can propose some of the things he does. Because the consistent line without conception would be lost. I mean we are left with the options with following clear and objective biology on when a life starts and in turn when it should be protected since protection of the innocence is a basic principle of a civilized society, or we can follow a line that is made up for convenience and if we choose that line, nothing stops it from changing whenever its no longer convenient. "Oh I can kill a Fetus at 15 weeks? Why not 16 weeks, why not 20? Why not the day it is being delivered, well even though its out, the umbilical cord isn't cut and I decided I don't like the way my baby looks. Can I kill it now?" Bud I am saying this with as much honesty I can. I am trying hard to get u to understand this because there was a time that I was u in terms of arguments. And it's because I became naive, ignorant, and resentful on the world and myself. I lost care in anyone or anything. My siblings becoming parents, my cousin becoming a mother, a rape victim I know that gave birth despite the father being a terrible person gave me clarity. At the end of the day just as I won't quit on giving the Fetus the chance to live out a life of passion, joy, challenge, hardship, love, hate, determination, struggle, and at the end content and peace, After abortion is illegal, I am not going to give up on the mothers that now have those challenges to face, the challenges society would have to face. Life can be such a fragile thing when it is not protected. It can be easy to devalue. I know it because I've been through it. But trust me. Just as we were granted that chance to live out a life, something that we now believe belongs to us, it should be no different for the next generation after that. At the end of the day, the true test of character is the actions u take during hardship. And the value of someone's life should only be determined by that someone and no one else.
P.S Sorry this was so long, I just wanted u to understand why I make the stands I do and that despite all the gaps in logic I find. That I do sympathize even with those that oppose. That I understand their reasoning because I once had it. I want to say at the very least that I thank you for actually providing me a good set of arguments that helped reminded me of the reasons why I have this stance. And because of that, u are simultaneously the best and worst opponent I have ever faced. And I at the very least owe u my highest respect for that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EnlightenedByKnowledge “Don't be coy. I’m pointing out to Sandra how she’s trying to have her cake and eat it too by insisting that all life is valuable from conception while either ignoring (or simply being ignorant of) the inconvenient implications of such a viewpoint.” - Such as?
“Women are undeniably human beings' intrinsic value, correct? And yet you’re quite willing to sacrifice the human rights of women in favor of fetuses,” - I’m sorry, it isn’t a right to tear apart another human being and suck their remains in a vacuum.
“whose status and value as human beings is debatable at best.” - Less than a century ago, there was debate if a Black person held value. Does that mean they shouldn’t had been legally protected?
“If you can’t even respect the lives and rights of born human beings, why should I trust your alleged concern for fetuses as human beings?” - Firstly, I do respect the lives of all innocent human beings. That is why we are having this conversation. And unless you are referring to the extreme anomaly cases, a woman’s life is not in any serious risk from having that child. Secondly, I have to mention above, you would need to make a case how a deliberate termination of another human being to undo a mistake she and her spouse themselves made is in any way, shape, or form a right.
“Except abortion isn’t murder. That is, unless the anti-abortion movement keeps changing the definition of murder to suit their argument.” - Murder is the premediated killing of another human being. So explain to me how abortion does not align with that definition.
“I’m afraid it has to be since the idea that abortion policies ought to be influenced on the grounds of how good for humanity somebody MIGHT turn out to be is absurd is ridiculous. Your argument cuts both ways.” - Except I never made that argument to begin with. I never said they would or wouldn’t be good. I said it should not be our decision to make for the child. The only one who can decide whether or not they would be good or bad is the individual him or herself. You don’t get to punish people for a crime they might do in 30 years.
“Priceless. Instead of helping others in your camp to word their arguments better (hence why I asked that question afterward), you go after low-hanging fruit and accuse others of trolling and “playing semantic games.” - I accused Micheal of trolling, and if you have seen some of the garbage that came out of his mouth, you would agree. Problem is though, you won’t because that does not suit your agenda. That logic cuts both ways.
“I knew what Sandra meant, but you just assumed I didn't know because it fits your neat and tidy narrative of pro-choice advocacy.” - It isn’t a matter of assumption. It is a matter of why say it when you know what he meant? If you didn’t you could have simply corrected the statement instead of being sarcastic about it.
“But I digress.” - Fair enough.
"An individual human being starts at conception"?
“This is begging the question. What is an "individual human being"?” - Well in the most basic basis, a member of the homosapien species, aka human species. The individual is from the fact that he or she is genetically their own being with a unique genetic code separated from the mother or father.
“Who determines what this is using what criteria? Perhaps a potential human being gets its start at conception, but the fact that human life is a continuum makes even this equivocal.” - And here lies a problem with that premise, because the same argument could be used for those after born. Who is to say a newborn is a “real” human being rather than a potential one. Hell you are aware males for example don’t stop developing till 21, so are you saying that they have to reach the end of development to count? Without a greater degree of context, this type of argumentation is haphazard at best.
1
-
1
-
@EnlightenedByKnowledge “The vast majority of the time, the woman voluntarily did what it takes to make a baby.”
“And in all of those instances, the woman took measures to prevent that from happening. Apparently, the only time you think intent doesn’t matter is when a pregnancy is the result.” - You don’t intend to run someone over with a car, but you are still held responsible for their injury or death if fault is attributed back to you. Same concept.
“Except having sex for purposes other than creating a child isn’t an immoral or unethical act,” - No, but it is one that comes with a set of consequences that said mother needs to be prepared for. Sometimes when you gamble, you lose your money.
“so there’s no need for any consequences. That you insist there should be consequences shows that you want to treat parenthood as a punishment.” - Whether or not you feel there is a need for consequence does not change there naturally is one. Parenthood isn’t punishment, but it is a responsibility placed as a result of your own choices.
“Innocent” means you did not commit a crime or offense. A fetus that's using your body without your consent is guilty of violating this human right.” - Not necessarily, one from a biological perspective, it isn’t using your body against its will.
“It doesn’t matter if you intend to commit a crime or offense for you to be considered guilty; what matters is that the crime is happening. If you think that sounds ridiculous, consider this: If you want a fetus to have equal rights, then with those same rights come the same restrictions as their born counterparts, including the restriction that you can’t use somebody else’s body against their will, in part or in whole, for any amount of time, even if doing so would save somebody’s life.” - And this creates a problem if you want consistency. If a human being is guilty of a crime that is worthy of the death penalty from the moment you come into existence, then that would create the notion that every human being is guilty and as such the state would reserve the right to kill us at any point for whatever reason. Also I think you fail to grasp that a removal is not the same as a deliberate termination.
“And yet you don’t see it wrong to not only blame people for experiencing an unintended consequence from engaging in a moral good,” - Sex is not a moral good. You can argue for it not being a moral evil, but the act in it of itself is not any act of moral right. Especially when carried out without commitment or responsibility.
“but to want to punish them for it as well. Nice double standard.” - Parenthood and ensuring the life of the child is not punishment, it is responsibility. And just like child negligence laws exist, or the draft exists. Sometimes you will not be granted the option to opt out of it. Ironically pro life is ok with those opting out until it involves the deliberate killing of the child.
“You're basically arguing that by merely choosing to have sex, with or without contraception, a woman becomes responsible for having a child.” - They become responsible for not killing it, and given again the existence of child negligence laws, yes. They are responsible for that child until they are able to pass it to someone else. Who else would be held responsible? No one else aside from the mother and father created that child.
“That's an argument that has everything to do with judging people’s sexual behavior, and nothing to do with the value of preborn life.” - Responsibility isn’t judgment. You’re not judged for losing a gamble, you are judged for not honoring the wager.
“Not necessarily. Sex education is so poor in the United States that many teens become sexually mature without understanding what causes what.” - Which is agreeable should be improved upon.
“But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the woman knew what she was doing and was being careless or stupid. This presents a conundrum. You think a woman isn’t responsible enough to avoid sex and pregnancy, but they’re somehow responsible enough to have that unwanted child and raise it for at least 18 years? Now, you could argue that she could just place the newborn up for adoption, but that’s not a solution either. Women have abortions for many reasons, and adoption doesn’t address all of them.” - It does address most. If the concern is having to raise the kid, they wouldn’t. The kid upon delivery or even in C section could be taken to foster care.
“So here we get down to the nitty-gritty. In your view, a woman decided to have sex, so she MUST suffer the consequences.” - Not suffer, accept. You fail to address that not all consequences are bad. A consequence is simply an effect. Sometimes consequences are good, sometimes bad, and sometimes neutral.
“She MUST be punished for that decision. Newsflash: A woman's decision to have sex does not entail consent for conceive,” - It actually is.
“gestate, and give birth.” - Once again, it is on them to take responsibility until someone else can.
“That you think it does shows that you only care about controlling women’s reproductive choices. That’s ironic coming from a woman.” - Not really, the fact it is coming from another woman means you can’t even make the sexist fallacies often shown by extreme pro choice advocates. Maybe the fact plenty of women support pro life should be proof that it isn’t simply about controlling other people. Of course that would require some degree of sincerity from pro-choicers.
“If you want to continue with a pregnancy, that’s your choice. But you need to let other people make their own choices regarding their pregnancy, including the choices that you don’t agree with.” - You mean the deliberate killing of an unborn child? No thanks.
“Don’t like it? That’s the price you pay for living in a free country.” - Don’t like rape? That is the price of living in a free country. Don’t like theft? That’s the price you pay for living in a free country? Also even disregarding the obvious comparisons above I could argue it in reverse. Don’t like being held responsible for your own child? That is the price you pay for living in a free country. It isn’t just free for you, it is free for your child.
“Yes, it does. Not being guilty of doing anything wrong isn’t the same thing as not being culpable, and a fetus is very much culpable in an unwanted pregnancy.” - By that logic, you are putting blame on another human being for simply existing. I don’t even think I need to get into why that is a ridiculous notion.
“Ask any credible lawyer, and they’ll tell you that “Not guilty” isn’t the same thing as “Innocent.” - By definition, innocent means being not guilty of any crime.
“That’s not what I’m arguing here. Stillborn children aren’t valuable since their continued existence inside a woman’s womb is dangerous to their health.” - No, their lives are valuable. But just as in certain situations you can only save one life or the other, does not mean the other life isn’t valuable. Yes in cases of medical complications, the mother’s life would be prioritized, especially given the child would be likely to die with her if she did. That does not mean the life of the child isn’t valuable. It is making the most logical choice within an emergency and extreme situation.
“Ironically, abortion bans after 15-20 weeks (when virtually all stillbirths happen) have made an already difficult and painful experience even harder, more traumatic, and more dangerous for everyone involved. Hope it was worth it.” - You mean after the point where a child becomes viable? Funny how you pro abortion members hold no bounds. Let me kill my child now, because he or she might die later.
“Since (a) euthanasia for cancer patients who requested it is a thing, and (b) we don’t call it “murder” when doctors go through with it, this argument is immaterial.” - Wrong on both counts if you are referring to the USA. The United States in most parts of the country has Mercy Killing illegal. So even that logic falls flat if you wish to remain consistent. And that is not even going into the notion that just because something is allowed to happen does not mean it is moral to do. And thirdly, it is not a one for one comparison since nowhere did the Fetus display a will to die. In fact nearly all evidence has shown the contrary.
“That just means it’s valuable to you. You need to understand that you live in a world where everybody’s opinion regarding their unborn child’s life is valid, including the ones that don’t see an unwanted child as “valuable.” Both of these reactions to a fetus may even occur in the same woman, years apart.” - Um once again, if you wish to remain consistent. Arguing that an unborn child does not have intrinsic value just because he or she may not be valued by the mother could be just as applied to a child after birth. Opinions differ for children after birth. Also the validity on a life is not conditional if said life is “wanted” or not. Otherwise by that logic, the Nazis had every right to murder the Jews since the Jew weren’t “wanted.”
“I have a baby sister who was stillborn and I still celebrate her birthday every single year.”
“That’s very sweet of you. I really mean that.
Likewise, there are women who can’t wait to get rid of their stillborn and move on with their lives. Yours isn’t the only valid reaction to a stillbirth, and diversity of reactions isn’t a valid reason to criminalize abortion.” - Once again ignoring that this is an anomaly case, just because the mother may not value her child does not constitute a right to kill said child.
1
-
@EnlightenedByKnowledge “Again, that’s not what I’m arguing here.
Like stillbirths, ectopic pregnancies aren’t valuable to the pregnant woman since they are fatal to both her and the fetus, something that you seem to agree with.
Moving on.” - Already addressed this point above. Not being able to save both and prioritizing one life over the other does not mean the other life does not hold value. You keep trying to treat the value of a human life as a zero sum game. When in most cases it isn’t.
“Calling an unborn baby a parasite to to justify killing it is wrong.”
“That just means it’s wrong to you.
Look, it’s not my intent to disparage fetuses with the negative connotations of the word “parasite”. As a matter of fact, parasites and their hosts often enjoy mutually supportive relationships, and this obviously includes most pregnancies.” - If the symbiotic relation provides positive effects to both parties, it is by definition not a parasitic relationship. It is a form of mutualism which is a different symbiotic relationship. Something that has been proven since some of the stem cells a Fetus has is transferred to the mother, allowing her to heal faster than normal. And that is just one example.
“However, the parasitic relationship of a fetus to a woman means that its continued existence requires her continued consent, and if she continues the pregnancy unwillingly, her rights and bodily integrity are violated.” - Um once again, it isn’t a parasitic relationship. Clearly you are not getting that there is more than one symbiotic relationship.
Commensalism: an association between two organisms in which one benefits and the other derives neither benefit nor harm.
Mutualism: symbiosis that is beneficial to both organisms involved.
Parasitism is a close relationship between species, where one organism, the parasite, lives on or inside another organism, the host, causing it some harm, and is adapted structurally to this way of life.
A Fetus, mother relationship is by definition a form of mutualism since both parties benefit from the arrangement.
“So why would you want a woman that you know is going to suffer during an unwanted pregnancy to be forced to continue it against her will,” - You don’t know she would suffer, unless you equate suffering with the premise of it being unwanted alone. And no one is forcing her to continue anything, forbidding a deliberate termination is not forcing anything.
“especially since any pregnancy can result in life-threatening or painful and debilitating complications?” - Another anomaly fallacy. Less than 1% of all abortion cases were done based on life threatening.
“When suffering can be alleviated, there is simply no reason not to do so… that is, unless punishment is the desired consequence.” - Or when alleviating it would require the suffering, harm, or destruction of someone else.
“I’m afraid it has to be that way since the idea that a single diploid cell is “innocent” is weird. Again, the squirrel that bit you and the rock that hit you aren’t guilty of what we interpret as bad. But you wouldn’t call them “innocent” either, would you?” - I mean, yes you would. Of course I find it funny how people try to make comparisons with animals but hey, that is on them.
“It makes no sense to say they were even on that spectrum. Likewise, a fetus is also not on that innocent/guilty spectrum. It doesn’t have the capacity to be in that spectrum.” - Once again, says who?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EnlightenedByKnowledge
“I don’t understand what you mean by the “validity of the [unborn] child’s life.” - Basically people trying to deny him or her as a valid human being.
“Could you elaborate on this?” - Sure.
“For the rest of your question, I would argue that a “right to life” doesn't entail a right to use somebody else's body against their will, in part or in whole, for any amount of time. For example, we have the right to refuse to donate our organs, even if doing so would save somebody else's life.” - I would not necessarily say entitled, but the parents would be held responsible. A more accurate comparison would be, would you not be held responsible if you caused someone to get hospitalized say through running them over with a car and you could have saved them through a blood transfusion or organ donation and chose not to, which in turn would cause that individual to die. Should the person who caused the predicament in the first place not be held responsible that they caused the death of another human being especially when the option existed to save them?
“On using the word “convenience”… I see little (if any) evidence that pregnancy and raising children are merely an inconvenience.” - I will admit I am stating that as a simplification. But I am mainly referring to cases not out of medical necessity.
“At the same time, we don’t call other major life-changing events and decisions as an inconvenience.” - You would be surprised.
“In short, using such a word plays down pregnancy and inflicts guilt instead of offering compassion, even if it wasn't intended.” - I want to make clear the goal isn’t to inflict guilt, but rather make a distinguishment. Also while I would argue that there are exceptions, the argument of “What if I am not ready?” Does come across as a convenience.
“Let's say a chef accidentally causes a grease fire on the stove they’re working with and sustains major burns to their arms and face. Without surgery, they won't heal right and they'll be disfigured for the rest of their life. The accident was [undeniably] their fault for not being more careful, but should they be denied treatment for their burn damage because of that?” - Not a direct equivalence. I never said treatments should never be provided at all, I asked why should it be done at the expense of someone else’s life? The child coming into existence is the fault of no one but the respective parents in questions within 98% of all cases. So when it is clearly the fault of the parents for creating the situation, why should the child be punished for it?
“Should they "accept the consequences" for what they did by not going to the hospital to reverse their injuries as much as possible?” - Once again, not a one for one comparison. Going to the hospital in the case of getting a burnt injury is not directly harming anyone else. Now let's phrase it in a way that is more accurate? The Chef got himself burnt and the only current available treatment in that moment was a bottle of aloe that is in the hands of someone else, should that individual have a right to kill that other individual to get that aloe?
“As far as consequences are concerned, I ask you: Should people be denied medical treatment for any other scenario, even if they caused it to themselves?” - If it is being carried out with the intention of directly harming another human being? Yes.
“I don’t. I have no opinion about the line and am content with leaving it up to experts. Not only that, legislatures make these kinds of distinctions all the time—in fact, in the hundreds of jurisdictions around the world where abortion is regulated (now including the U.S.), they already have.” - Ok and I think you already know a counter I am going to throw. A. By setting that, are you suggesting you would have no care for how much or little it is regulated so as long as it came from the government? Secondly, something that has been enabled legally does not reflect what is always right morally. If we applied that kind of logic to another issue like slavery back in the 1860s, we might be seeing a very different USA rn.
1
-
@MichaelAronson No it ain't. Literally google the definition.
Oxford: something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.
Merriam-Webster: something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified :
Dictionary. Cambridge: a person or thing that is different from what is usual, or not in agreement with something else and therefore not satisfactory:
Dictionary Website:
a deviation from the common rule, type, arrangement, or form.
an anomalous person or thing; one that is abnormal or does not fit in:
With his quiet nature, he was an anomaly in his exuberant family.
an odd, peculiar, or strange condition, situation, quality, etc.
an incongruity or inconsistency.
Astronomy. a quantity measured in degrees, defining the position of an orbiting body with respect to the point at which it is nearest to or farthest from its primary.
Meteorology. the amount of deviation of a meteorological quantity from the accepted normal value of that quantity.
None of these definitions mention that it a concept that cannot be explained. Also nice try at lying through your teeth. Once again, when did I ever say I was ok with pregnant people dying?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EnlightenedByKnowledge “Keep in mind, I'm doing my best to keep your points brief by addressing them as broadly and encompassing as possible.” - Ok.
“I don’t deny that the fetus is a human being. I just find that it’s irrelevant in the abortion debate. Common law has consistently held that its citizens are under no legal obligation to take action to save another human being—in fact, the law can’t even compel you to donate organs against your will, even if doing so would save somebody’s life (McFall v. Shimp, 1978). You would have to literally ignore such a legal precedent in order to justify your position.” - As I mentioned, that would only be the case in a neutral situation. If you are the direct cause that would put someone else in the position where they would need something from you to live, sure you can technically say no. But if you do and the individual dies, you would be held responsible for that.
“We already hold people responsible for crimes – it’s called a trial by a jury of your peers and (if found guilty) subsequent sentencing. But I find such comparisons to be all-purpose, throwaway scenarios that merely beg the question as to why abortion should be treated as a crime.” - For the simple reason that it is deliberately terminating the life of another innocent human being.
“You don’t seem to understand that an abortion isn't on every woman’s bucket list, and there are a lot of factors in a pregnant woman’s life that goes into her deciding to get an abortion that you’re not going to be privy to. Assuming that the overwhelming majority of abortions are sought out of convenience is incredibly narrow-minded.” - Once again, you need to understand what would be classified as a convenience in this situation. I am not saying pregnancy is easy, nor did I say complications can’t arise, but the comparison to a literal child being torn apart and sucked to a vacuum cleaner would comparatively have most fall under that branch. Finances are not an excuse to take another human life, nor is “not being ready.”
“Since analogies are not meant to be a direct equivalent, you’re missing the point of my chef analogy (for example, your rewriting of my analogy equivocates what is undeniably a crime with a medical procedure which isn't inherently a crime). I’m using an analogy to deconstruct the idea of withholding medical treatment from people because they engaged in admittedly risky behavior which ended up altering their lives.” - You’re missing what I am saying. Sex isn’t a crime, but the act of deliberately taking the life of another human being to undo the consequences of sex are, or at least should be.
“Unborn children are beyond the spectrum of morality and cannot do right or wrong. Abortion doctors do not intend to condemn the fetus for any wrongdoing since no wrongdoing could have ever occurred.” - The act of deliberate termination is essentially condemning them for death, as it is essentially placing fault on the child for simply existing.
“The goal of an abortion is not to harm the fetus – it’s to terminate a pregnancy.” - No it is to harm the Fetus. You are aware that the Fetus is terminated before a removal is even attempted. If it was simply about ending the pregnancy early without carrying out harm to the fetus, then a simple C Section like removal would be done, not the actions carried out in an abortion procedure.
“The fact that a non-viable fetus (when over 90% of abortions take place) cannot survive independently of its mother's body is, if anything, just an unfortunate fact of biology.” - Which is dishonest of how an abortion procedure operates. It is absolutely carried out with the intention to harm the child. In fact many of the pro choice politicians shot down a bill that pro lifers made that would of had children who survived an abortion procedure be legally protected to under go the same care and standards that a normal born baby would have.
“Even if people behave irresponsibly, we don't deny them medical treatment in any other situation.” - If the treatment is being carried out through directly harming another human being, it would be denied. You don’t get to hurt or kill someone else to undo the consequences of your own choices.
“By saying "Yes," you're not being pro-life -- you're being pro-punishment. Calling it "accepting responsibility" doesn't change its function as a punishment.” - It’s function isn’t a punishment. The action of pregnancy nor having a child is meant to be punitive, quite the contrary. But the thing is, accepting responsibility and taking responsibility is not punishment.
“The government can regulate abortion as much as it pleases, but it would be a waste of their time. Historical and contemporary data consistently show that women will seek abortions at about the same rate regardless of its legal status. It's just a fact of human civilization that women will seek abortions even when they're illegal.” - I will be the first to ask what data you are using for that.
“Having extensively studied U.S. history, I was never convinced by those who compare abortion to slavery. If anything, the slavery analogy is more consistent with the pro-life position, especially since (a) slave owners forced their slaves to give birth (sometimes after raping them), and (b) the most pro-slavery states in the Antebellum South are nowadays the most anti-abortion states.” - I would argue otherwise. Both are based on a basis of denying the validity of a human being and constituting the right to do what one wants with said being. Both are being defended on the grounds of the government not interfering with some basis of freedom and rights, despite the fact neither were constitutional rights. While slaves were made to reproduce, that was done so with the clear intention of themselves and the child being treated as cattle and the humanity of that child was denied to begin with. Also I don’t think it is accurate to compare the Antebellum South today, to the slave owners that existed there almost 2 centuries ago.
1
-
@EnlightenedByKnowledge “Remember, we’re trying to avoid another Gish gallop.” - Such as?
* * *
“1. You can’t be held legally responsible for not donating your body against your will, in part or in whole, to somebody else who needs it, even if doing so would save somebody else’s life. You’re free to volunteer, but you can’t be legally compelled. Otherwise, what's the point of bodily sovereignty?” - But you can be held responsible if your actions is what caused that person to necessitate saving in the first place. Take an example, if a man ran over someone with a car and that person went to the hospital, the doctor says the only way for the ran over person to survive the injuries is if the man agrees to make a blood transfusion, if the man says no, the ran over person will die. Do you not think the man would not or should not be held legally responsible for the fact he directly caused that person to die, especially when an option existed for that man to save him or her? The short answer is someone would be held responsible. So why would it be any different here? As mentioned, a Fetus only came into its position in the first place as a direct consequence of the actions his or her parents did. Why should the child die to undo that mistake?
“2. It’s illogical to call a fetus “innocent” since it’s incapable of existing on a spectrum of innocence/guilt.” - Only according to you. I don’t agree. And the relevance of this point is made mute, reframe it whatever you would like. Still doesn’t change the Fetus did no wrong and as such, there would be nothing that would justify his or her condiment to death.
“Not to mention the implications that come with it. Why isn’t the mother innocent?” - In the case of an abortion, simple. She with full knowledge and motive to do so is terminating the life of her child.
“And if both mother and fetus are innocent, whose innocence should be overridden and why?” - The mother is innocent until she takes action to kill said child. No one is saying her innocence should be overwritten, only that we should not enable a clear act that would be equvelate to murder to continue to be treated as anything less than a criminal act.
“3. Your reference to D&E abortions – the rarest kind in existence – is committing the Spotlight Fallacy.” - How so? If it is rare, that should only further my point. A more humane option exists that would at least attempt to save the life of the child, yet not only is that measure not taken. But much of the pro choice argument actively works to prevent any protections on the child that was intended to be aborted at all.
“4. What you consider to be a convenience regarding abortion is ultimately a matter of subjective opinion,” - It really isn’t. Because all we have to ask is would these reasons be considered valid excuses if they were to be carried out in terminating an innocent human being after birth. And like I said, I am not saying that it is automatically easy, nor am I saying there can’t be complications. But to act like in 99% of cases that what a woman would go through would be even comparable to literally having a body torn apart and sucked through a vacuum is frankly ridiculous.
“and the only opinion that matters when dealing with an unwanted pregnancy is that of the woman. Why should a third party with no stake in her private reproductive choices get to decide, but not her?” - Why should a third party had interfered with slavery, or rape, or drugs, and anything for that matter? A third party exists to protect the interests of the one who can’t voice those interests. Back in the day it was slaves, then Jews, and now it is the unborn. Also when the abortion clinics are literally recieving government funding with tax payer money, then it is no longer a private matter, and that’s if your’re ignoring that any kind of abuse or destruction of a human being is not a private matter.
“5. Saying abortion “should be” a crime is committing the Naturalistic Fallacy.” - I never made an appeal to nature. I never said something was automatically good just because it is natural. So either you did not pay attention to my context or you attempted to put words in my mouth. For the sake of giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will say the formal.
“6. Malice is defined as a conscious, intentional wrongdoing either of a civil wrong or a criminal act, with the intention of doing harm to the victim. Since harm and death are not the goal of an abortion,” - Tell that to the treatment of abortion survivors, plus literally pro choice adovates kept moving the goal post long after a point where the child could survive on their own. After that point, there is no excuse unless you are accounting for the 1%.
“malice is not a factor that compels the process of abortion,” - Do you really think no parent seeks an abortion with the intention of getting rid of their child?
“so claiming that an abortions are done with the intent to harm the fetus is misrepresenting not only its purpose, but the motives of the woman and doctor, all without evidence.” - Coming in with the full knowledge and intent to kill that fetus would make it come across that way pretty easily. Even if I agreed it wasn’t the primary intent, it still does not change they cannot play ignorant on the implications of their own actions.
“7. Good on those politicians. They saw that the bill existed to prevent the mythical casual late-term abortion invented by pro-lifers,” - So hold on, you are suggesting that you would be against late term abortion unless under medical neccessity being outlawed. Also I don’t see how a bill that specifically states the protection of the child in the event he or she survives the abortion procedure is equvelant to that.
“and that such a bill (had it passed) would’ve been a stepping stone for even steeper abortion restrictions in the future.” - Slippery Slope fallacy. You cannot automatically shoot down something good, just because it could lead to what they perceive as bad later. That makes no sense. Also the same could be said in reverse and rn there is more evidence to suggest the reverse is true, since every single time the pro choicers gain any ground on abortion being allowed up to a certain point, they keep moving their goal post.
“In the real world, healthy pregnant women with healthy 8½ month fetuses do not casually demand abortions, and doctors do not casually agree to do them. To suggest otherwise is an insult to both women and doctors.” - It does become a smaller statistic, but does not mean it does not happen. Also if it almost never happens, there would be no reason to oppose it being outlawed.
1
-
@EnlightenedByKnowledge “8. A fetus isn't entitled to another person's womb for the mere virtue of existing, and if a woman wants them out, they are within their rights to make it happen.” - Removal and deliberate termination are not the same thing.
“It's their uterus, not the fetus'.” - Ok and I could argue a woman is not entitled to kill another human being to undo a mistake she herself caused. That goes both ways.
“9. Punitive damages are considered a type on punishment in law. You’re still being pro-punishment. Also, taking responsibility entails choosing to do something. The pregnant woman chooses to get an abortion in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, so she's taking responsibility -- just not in a way which acceptable to you.” - No she is dodging it, not all choices are being responsible and many are done to actively avoid that responsibility. This is no different. As mentioned, I am not pro punishment, at least not based on the idea that pregnancy is a punishment. Because it isn’t.
“10. You’re right. Nobody was forced to subjugate born, living human beings to a lifetime of involuntary servitude, but the very fact that they were allowed to do so was wrong. That's why nobody should force women to endure an unwanted pregnancy, not even the government.” - Once again, denying an action to kill a child is not the same as forcing anything. As mentioned, I have no care if a woman ends her pregnancy early, if doing so does not kill her own child. And the same could said that is just as wrong to treat a human being as what is effectively property that can be disposed of whenever someone wants for whatever reason. That degrades the unborn to the same value of blacks during slavery where at best their value was conditional, and at worst were treated like disposable property no different than a piece of fire wood.
“To suggest otherwise is to believe that it isn’t wrong to put up barriers between people and their right to bodily sovereignty,” - The thing is there has always been barriers. What do you think concepts like age of consent, drinking age, seatbelt laws, child negligence laws also do? Also I am not going to lie, I won’t accuse you of this since I don’t know your stance on this, but most pro choices forfeited this argument from the moment they were ok with vaccine mandates from the government which directly violated the body autonomy they claimed to fight for. It kinda becomes inconsistent to argue “My body, my choice.” During the vaccination mandate they cheered upon people getting fired, excluded from society, and in some areas even arrested and fined for not doing it. And that is a lot more forced than leaving an already existing pregnancy.
“just like slave-owners did to their slaves, hence the comparison is warranted. It’s also worth noting that unlike fetuses, slaves didn’t live inside of their owners and depend on them for their continued existence at the exclusion of everybody else.” - I mean, in a one for one no. But in other cases yes, many slaves did not know how to function in society once granted freedom and ironically this was an argument pro slavers used, that the slaves benefited off of being slaves, and that freeing them would lead to many blacks who didn’t know how to function in society and could even lead to a revolt. Also as I mentioned, why should dependence be the deciding factor? Is that literally trying to say that their life is only as valuable as the amount of people that can care for him or her?
* * *
“One final question: Assuming they are caught, what do you believe the punishment ought to be for women who get abortions, and the doctors who provide them?” - For the doctor, I think depending on the scale of the crime, 20-life in prison would be fine. As for the woman, this is more complicated. The thing is that the goal would not be to punish her, but at the same time, some degree of action would have to be done to scare them from attempts. I could see repeated attempts lead to maybe either a year in prison, a fine, or perhaps receiving some kind of therapy. But that would only be extreme cases since as mentioned the goal would not be for the woman to be punished.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Michael 마익흘 Aronson not really. Simply look up my channel, my YouTube page, many other video comment sections, Facebook, discord, Kik, and amino. Not to mention Xbox. Also no. Again u can explain why u hate pro life members so much? What the hell did I or any of my allies ever do to u? Seriously, unless ur a dumb troll, u would have to have a legitimate reason to hate us so much. Also I’m sorry but no, we aren’t committing suicide to gratify u. For someone who claims to defend women, u advocate for 51% of them to kill themselves. Plain evil and despicable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1