"Pro-lifers" are not

[jomar]

They are not so much pro-life as pro-pregnancy

 

[Comshaw]

You're completely discounting the actual argument pro life people are making and substituting a weak argument that you can easily beat.

...there's a name for this tactic.

Here's an argument for you.

George Carlin- On abortion and pro life supporters


Comshaw

 

[RobDownSouth]

The original Hippocratic Oath does say, "I will never give any woman a pessary to induce abortion."

Of course, we're talking about a time and place when medical theory was based on the Four Humors, two of which do not even exist.

TWO humors don't even exist? I know one would be "conservative humor", but what on Earth is the other one?

 

[pecksniff]

TWO humors don't even exist? I know one would be "conservative humor", but what on Earth is the other one?

Black bile (melancholer) and yellow bile (choler) do not exist. Blood and phlegm exist, but their roles in the body are entirely different from what the humorist physicians imagined for thousands of years.

 

[LittleDixie]

Here's an argument for you.

George Carlin- On abortion and pro life supporters


Comshaw

Yeah, I like George Carlin, but I think he's off on this one.

Conservatives view unborn fetuses as human beings that have human rights. They are not in favor of any human being being torn apart, limb from limb and thrown in a medical waste bag - from conception to natural death, they afford all human beings this protection. They also don't think that your welfare is anyone else's burden - from conception to natural death, no one else is a slave that should work for your benefit.

So, yes. When you are unborn, you should not be murdered. When you are born, you should not be murdered. They believe that human rights begin at conception.

 

[ll74]

Not all conservatives view human rights beginning at conception. Many actually support first trimester abortions.

Religious people are the ones you're talking about....the most evangelicals are typically the ones touring conception as the starting point.

 

[ll74]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/me...ation-s-demographic-divides-abortion-n1278210

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yeah, I like George Carlin, but I think he's off on this one.

Conservatives view unborn fetuses as human beings that have human rights. They are not in favor of any human being being torn apart, limb from limb and thrown in a medical waste bag - from conception to natural death, they afford all human beings this protection. They also don't think that your welfare is anyone else's burden - from conception to natural death, no one else is a slave that should work for your benefit.

So, yes. When you are unborn, you should not be murdered. When you are born, you should not be murdered. They believe that human rights begin at conception.

If you don't think other people's welfare is your burden you aren't pro-life, you're pro birth and anti-women. This one isn't complicated. If you allow someone to starve that you could have prevented, especially with minimal effort, you are a murderer.

And human beings are not torn apart on any sort of regular basis. Perhaps if you guys were more honest we could have a better conversation.

 

[Comshaw]

Yeah, I like George Carlin, but I think he's off on this one.

Conservatives view unborn fetuses as human beings that have human rights. They are not in favor of any human being being torn apart, limb from limb and thrown in a medical waste bag - from conception to natural death, they afford all human beings this protection. They also don't think that your welfare is anyone else's burden - from conception to natural death, no one else is a slave that should work for your benefit.

So, yes. When you are unborn, you should not be murdered. When you are born, you should not be murdered. They believe that human rights begin at conception.

You seemed to have missed, or intentionally ignored, the gist of Carlin's comments. Pro-lifers are VERY invested in the life of a fetus. However, once born it's as Carlin pointed out, they figure the child is on their own. And yes, it is the parent's job to provide for and raise that child, but unless you've had your head under a rock for most of your life, you should know that isn't easy in a lot of places.

So you have a girl with little education, in a place where there are few jobs, even for those who want to work, who is pregnant. That happens for any number of reasons: rape, incest, or just having sex without contraception. It doesn't really matter HOW it happens, only that it does. So you pro-lifers state, "you do not have the right to make the choice of what happens with your body. The fetus within you has a right to grow to be a human, and will come to term and be born!" Am I right so far?

Okay, so abortion is banned. The next thing is at and after the birth. You have demanded she keep the fetus to term. That is YOUR choice, not hers. So she goes into labor, goes to the hospital and the child is born, a child YOU insisted be born. So, on your insistence, she is now shouldered with medical bills for the birth and pre-natal care. Not only that but you also insist she get a job, something that is in very short supply where she lives. AND you insist she pays for child care while she works, medical when the child needs it, feeds, clothes and educates that child all to YOUR level of acceptance, on a minimum wage IF she can find a job.

So what it comes down to is YOU and the pro-lifers declare a fetus a living child and DEMAND that anyone who gets pregnant allow that fetus be allowed to grow into a child. But once that child is born, your interference disappears, you walk away, leaving behind the edict that the mother will support, care for that child WITH ABSOLUTELY NO HELP FROM THOSE WHO DEMANDED THAT CHILD COME INTO THE WORLD.

That my dear is the essence of what you said. But that's not the kicker here. The vast majority of unintentional pregnancies can be prevented by contraception. The funny thing is that the people who want to do away with a woman's choice over her body aren't stopping at abortion. They are also trying to do away with contraception. And no, you aren't going to be able to deny that. There are already two states working on legislation to do exactly that.

You say, "When you are unborn, you should not be murdered. When you are born, you should not be murdered." That is the concept of the right wing pro-lifers (and you). That group has no problem insisting a woman has no right to bodily autonomy, because the fetus is a living being and shouldn't be murdered. That same group, however, has no problem with claiming bodily autonomy as in, "my body and I'll put into it what I want" or "my body and I'll wear a mask if I want" killing those who are vulnerable, or putting other people at risk of death. A classic double standard. Do what I say and not what I do.

Perhaps you should go back, think about your position and try to come up with a better argument, one that makes sense.


Comshaw

 

[Rightguide]

TWO humors don't even exist? I know one would be "conservative humor", but what on Earth is the other one?

The humor in all of this is the fact that the SCOTUS has overturned precedent over 300 times in its history as of 2018, but snowflakes act as if its decisions are sacrosanct. How fucking stupid can you assholes be?

 

[ll74]

The humor in all of this is the fact that the SCOTUS has overturned precedent over 300 times in its history as of 2018, but snowflakes act as if its decisions are sacrosanct. How fucking stupid can you assholes be?

Say you don't understand precedent without saying you don't understand precedent

This was a right that was precedent.....not some small law.

 

[neuroparenthetical]

Yeah, I like George Carlin, but I think he's off on this one.

Conservatives view unborn fetuses as human beings that have human rights. They are not in favor of any human being being torn apart, limb from limb and thrown in a medical waste bag - from conception to natural death, they afford all human beings this protection. They also don't think that your welfare is anyone else's burden - from conception to natural death, no one else is a slave that should work for your benefit.

So, yes. When you are unborn, you should not be murdered. When you are born, you should not be murdered. They believe that human rights begin at conception.

But then they think that a pregnant woman is a slave that should have to work for the fetus's benefit - and, indirectly, based upon the prevailing legal arguments, for the state's benefit. Hrm. Maybe there's something to this idea that the current "conservative" coalition comprises an awful lot of people who are sympathetic to some forms of slavery. I wonder why that is? I wonder what kind of historical lines we might be able to trace?

Conveniently enough, they also carve out plenty of exceptions for when "killing someone" doesn't count as murder. However, even though these fetuses represent a clear and serious infringement upon the bodily autonomy and health of their hosts, these reactionaries refuse to consistently apply the frameworks that turn murders into "just killings" elsewhere. A man's home is his castle; a woman's uterus is state property. Welp, say goodbye to basically every bit of Enlightenment-era philosophy that constructed a body-outwards framework for fundamental rights. I'm sure the reactionaries will be so sad to see that all go. I'm sure they'll recognize just how much authoritarian power that logically grants to the government.

 

[LittleDixie]

If you don't think other people's welfare is your burden you aren't pro-life, you're pro birth and anti-women. This one isn't complicated. If you allow someone to starve that you could have prevented, especially with minimal effort, you are a murderer.

And human beings are not torn apart on any sort of regular basis. Perhaps if you guys were more honest we could have a better conversation.

I do not think that other people's welfare is my burden. I also don't think that people should be murdered. I don't see how those two views are inconsistent.

 

[LittleDixie]

You seemed to have missed, or intentionally ignored, the gist of Carlin's comments. Pro-lifers are VERY invested in the life of a fetus. However, once born it's as Carlin pointed out, they figure the child is on their own.

Carlin is reducing the pro-life argument to an absurdity, and he is sidestepping the root assertion completely. They are interested in the life of a fetus because they see the fetus as alive and separate and human. They afford the fetus human rights. I can believe that people in foreign countries deserve human rights, but does that mean that because I do, I am responsible for feeding and clothing those people?

AND, I would say that Carlin's joke could be turned around on him. 'George Carlin believes that society should protect you and take care of you and respect you every day until you die, but if you're on the other side of those labia, YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN, KID! *Laughter and applause*...one side of the labia, you're a human being who deserves free health care to preserve your life, other side of the labia and you're a clump of cells that get sucked out through a tube and thrown in the garbage. Born halfway? You're half a person. If you're black, when you're 3/5ths of the way past those labia, you're right in line with Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution! *hysterical laughter*

So what it comes down to is YOU and the pro-lifers declare a fetus a living child and DEMAND that anyone who gets pregnant allow that fetus be allowed to grow into a child. But once that child is born, your interference disappears, you walk away, leaving behind the edict that the mother will support, care for that child WITH ABSOLUTELY NO HELP FROM THOSE WHO DEMANDED THAT CHILD COME INTO THE WORLD.

That my dear is the essence of what you said.

Well, no, it's not that at all. I'm not pro-life. I'm actually pro-choice, but I'm also an honest debater. This entire conversation has been a collection of strawmen and distractions pointing away from the actual issue rather than taking it head on, and I am just trying to point out the thing you don' want to address.

The problem is "when does a human being get afforded human rights?" You can literally set that point at any age. You can set it at conception, you can set it at the heartbeat, you can set at by trimester, by birth or you could even say that a human being doesn't deserve human rights until their 18th birthday. Why not? This is the fundamental issue, and the foundational question that people need to grapple with.

You say, "When you are unborn, you should not be murdered. When you are born, you should not be murdered." That is the concept of the right wing pro-lifers (and you). That group has no problem insisting a woman has no right to bodily autonomy, because the fetus is a living being and shouldn't be murdered. That same group, however, has no problem with claiming bodily autonomy as in, "my body and I'll put into it what I want" or "my body and I'll wear a mask if I want" killing those who are vulnerable, or putting other people at risk of death. A classic double standard. Do what I say and not what I do.

Again, I'm not right wing, and I'm not a pro-lifer. But I do say that our society should punish murder. There is a big difference between deliberately having an abortion and deciding not to wear a mask because someone somewhere will catch a mild virus and die from it. Covid was blown way way way out of proportion and it was dropped as soon as it became politically unpopular. Quit pretending like it was a big deal, you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Veroe]

What amazes me is all the pro-life people I know are all pro-death penalty. The two stances seem contradictory to me.

 

[neuroparenthetical]

I can believe that people in foreign countries deserve human rights, but does that mean that because I do, I am responsible for feeding and clothing those people?

If you substantially interfere with their lives, potentially via the governments they live under, to enforce your vision for how they should live, then yeah, you are. With that power comes responsibility. If some religious wingnut who thinks clumps of cells are ensouled fucks off to a cave in the mountains and doesn't vote, then he can believe whatever the fuck he wants. I can accuse him of shitty premises and flawed arguments, but I'll have a much tougher time assigning him real responsibility.

Once you start talking about what a particular government can and can't do to a particular group of people, and you actively use your power to push it in certain directions, you're on the hook. At a minimum you're on the hook morally and intellectually. Beyond that, I'd say you're on the hook to use your political power - one singular vote though it may be - to vote for representatives who will be similarly morally and intellectually consistent.

You'll notice that we're not overly concerned right now with what some random goat herder in Afghanistan thinks about U.S. constitutional law. We're not demanding he take responsibility for any fetuses or unwanted children.

 

[oggbashan]

I do not believe that life starts at conception.

As far as abortion is concerned I think most European countries have it generally right. Abortion is allowed up to the point in which a fetus could survive outside the womb. With advances in postnatal care that is becoming earlier and earlier.

The legal limit is not keeping pace with advances in medicine but very few UK or European abortions come close to the date when survival is just possible.

The later ones, closer to the limit, are because the fetus is dead, severely damaged or not viable.

But I think the US should invest in contraceptive advice instead of allowing so many abortions because the pregnancy was not prevented.


Abortion as a birth control device harms the mother.

 

[ll74]

Independent life doesn't start at.conception. if it did, the. It wouldnt need to gestate in the womb for 9 months.

The people arguing that need to be honest that they are talking about a soul, which is a religious, not scientific, discussion.

 

[Chernosoth]

A fetus is at least two things simultaneously: a part of a woman's body and the need of a community or tribe to raise healthy children for its own survival. While courts struggle with this duality, the Abrahamic religions, including the atheist progressive branches, are fucked up about all issues biological because they started with a philosophical turn away from biology to pure spirit, soul, mind, etc.

 

[phrodeau]

If the Pill was developed now rather than the 1950’s, we’d have to deal with nutjobs claiming that it causes rabies or lowers your credit rating, and folks would be on TV telling us that drinking sheep-dip or wearing a flea collar would be effective.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I do not think that other people's welfare is my burden. I also don't think that people should be murdered. I don't see how those two views are inconsistent.

Because there is no murder there is a life you forced into existence and refuse to take responsibility for. You're actually WORSE than a dead beat dad.

 

[adrina]

But then they think that a pregnant woman is a slave that should have to work for the fetus's benefit - and, indirectly, based upon the prevailing legal arguments, for the state's benefit. .

Just wanted to quote this.

But it's not indirect. It's quite direct.

Without the right to abort, a woman is a sub citizen in service to a fetus and the state.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

As far as abortion is concerned I think most European countries have it generally right. Abortion is allowed up to the point in which a fetus could survive outside the womb. With advances in postnatal care that is becoming earlier and earlier.

The legal limit is not keeping pace with advances in medicine but very few UK or European abortions come close to the date when survival is just possible.

The later ones, closer to the limit, are because the fetus is dead, severely damaged or not viable.

But I think the US should invest in contraceptive advice instead of allowing so many abortions because the pregnancy was not prevented.


Abortion as a birth control device harms the mother.

Ogg,

Canada seems to align with European rules on Abortion. I think we have it as 24 weeks as the edge of viablity outside the mother's womb.

If the US truly wanted to eliminate abortion, then a huge influx of education for Sex-Ed, dollars for outside agencies, and easy access ( ie parental consent not required for minors, and free for minors as well) to birth control, both for the cost, and the legal requirements to purchase.

 

[phrodeau]

Ogg,

Canada seems to align with European rules on Abortion. I think we have it as 24 weeks as the edge of viablity outside the mother's womb.

If the US truly wanted to eliminate abortion, then a huge influx of education for Sex-Ed, dollars for outside agencies, and easy access ( ie parental consent not required for minors, and free for minors as well) to birth control, both for the cost, and the legal requirements to purchase.

Eliminating abortion isn’t likely in the US. For a start, there are over two million home-schooled children, getting no sex education.

 

[Comshaw]

Carlin is reducing the pro-life argument to an absurdity, and he is sidestepping the root assertion completely. They are interested in the life of a fetus because they see the fetus as alive and separate and human. They afford the fetus human rights. I can believe that people in foreign countries deserve human rights, but does that mean that because I do, I am responsible for feeding and clothing those people?

AND, I would say that Carlin's joke could be turned around on him. 'George Carlin believes that society should protect you and take care of you and respect you every day until you die, but if you're on the other side of those labia, YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN, KID! *Laughter and applause*...one side of the labia, you're a human being who deserves free health care to preserve your life, other side of the labia and you're a clump of cells that get sucked out through a tube and thrown in the garbage. Born halfway? You're half a person. If you're black, when you're 3/5ths of the way past those labia, you're right in line with Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution! *hysterical laughter*


Well, no, it's not that at all. I'm not pro-life. I'm actually pro-choice, but I'm also an honest debater. This entire conversation has been a collection of strawmen and distractions pointing away from the actual issue rather than taking it head on, and I am just trying to point out the thing you don' want to address.

The problem is "when does a human being get afforded human rights?" You can literally set that point at any age. You can set it at conception, you can set it at the heartbeat, you can set at by trimester, by birth or you could even say that a human being doesn't deserve human rights until their 18th birthday. Why not? This is the fundamental issue, and the foundational question that people need to grapple with.


Again, I'm not right wing, and I'm not a pro-lifer. But I do say that our society should punish murder. There is a big difference between deliberately having an abortion and deciding not to wear a mask because someone somewhere will catch a mild virus and die from it. Covid was blown way way way out of proportion and it was dropped as soon as it became politically unpopular. Quit pretending like it was a big deal, you're embarrassing yourself.

I'm sorry my dear, but you are far from being an "honest debater" You want to cherry pick from both sides of the argument. You argue that you are Pro Choice, but insist that abortion is murder. How are those two points consistent? You insist abortion is murder with no qualifier that you are only playing the devil's advocate, but also insist that when you demand a woman allows a fetus to grow into a child, that that child is none of your concern and they can starve if the parents don't provide for them EVEN THOUGH IN A PRIOR PART OF THE ARGUMENT, YOU (because you did not delineate your "devil's advocate" position)INSISTED THEY BE BORN.

If you are just playing the devil's advocate, you can not use (without completely separating them, or an explanatory insert that you are playing the devil's advocate) conflicting elements of the argument from both sides.

We aren't talking about welfare in general, or that "society should take care of you" in any other instance than supporting a child pro-life advocates insisted on being born. You insist you are pro-life, and insist that you should not be responsible for others. Okay, I'll accept that. But if you go back to my post and substitute a "conservative" or a "pro-lifer" for each instance where I attributed the stance to you, my points still stands.

1) Pro-lifers believe in banning all abortion.

2) Pro-lifers believe they have autonomy over their own bodies, but also believe a woman should not. That is evidenced by their insistence on not only banning abortion but contraception as well.

3) Pro-lifers as a whole believe in point one, but also believe as you do that they shouldn't be responsible for the child after it is born, even though THEY are responsible for its existence. That's EXACTLY what Carlin said.

Let's look at a couple of your other arguments:

"The problem is, "when does a human being get afforded human rights?"

I'm sorry, but that isn't the question or even part of the debate and never has been. Both sides concede that ALL human beings deserve human rights.

The debated point is and always has been: When is a fetus a human being?

You have extremes, of course. One extreme is until they are born, they aren't a human being, the other is the moment an egg is fertilized. Many consider the point of viability to be it, still other's when a heart beat is detected. That question is appropriate and germane to the debate. The question you posed is not.

You accuse me and others in this thread of using, "...a collection of strawmen and distractions pointing away from the actual issue rather than taking it head on,..."
While simultaneously trying to redirect the the debate (see the question you posed above) in a direction that has nothing to do with the core of the question. It appears you are using exactly that which you accuse others of using.

When your argument is shot down with logic, you retreat to the position "Well I'm not really pro-life", If you are going to play the devil's advocate in a debate, but you really don't believe in that position, you need to make that apparent.

Again, you need to go back and reevaluate your argument.


For me: I think I've sufficiently made my points.
'nuff said.

Comshaw