ARealConservative said:
The requirements to carry to term are also the requirements to survive the next 9 months.
UNCLEAR, POSSIBLY FALSE. The survival-modus-operandi of an unborn human involves a physical link to extract resources, exactly like a parasite forms a physical link to extract resources from a host (
for more info on this, see this Message and the ones that follow it). After birth, however, a human is physically unable to act in any manner that can be called "parasitic". Any sustenance it receives can only be a gift. It is possible that a Society can require gift-giving (learning generosity is better than learning selfishness). But
NO parasitic animals are required to be coddled.
ARealConservative said:
That's like saying my right to life requires you to not go out of its way to keep me from eating and drinking.
STILL UNCLEAR. Mostly because "right to life" does not apply to unborn humans, as explained in
a previous Message. We are not concerned here in this Debate with
your personal right to life. Also, what does "you go out of its way" mean? I will assume that was a typo, "its" should have been "your". So let's consider a cloud of mosquitoes, that want to suck your blood, much like a human fetus does inside a womb. If you don't mind the mosquitoes doing that, and think they have a right to suck your blood, then as far as
you are concerned, those mosquitoes don't deserve to be called "parasites". It is not "parasitic" for any organism to receive a gift, see? However, if you think the mosquitoes don't have some kind of right to suck your blood, then as far as you are concerned, they
can be called parasites. And so to swat them, you have to "go out of your way" (your normal set of activities) to do that. Well,
that same reasoning applies to unborn human animals.
The host decides-- and no one else! --whether or not an unborn human has a right to suck the host's blood. And if the decision leads "going out of the way" to terminate a parasite, so what?
ARealConservative said:
Your required to do nothing but ensure your own survival.
FALSE. If our Society actually
required people to survive, one of the consequences would be the existence of a Minimum Wage Law that ensures that paid-for human labor is always sufficient to continue to survive. Yet many so-called "pro lifers" who want to ban abortion, also oppose Minimum Wage Laws. Why? Because they are hypocrites;
all they really want is cheap labor, no matter how many human people die of starvation in the process.
ARealConservative said:
But for fun, let's extend your failed logic.
So far, your own "logic" appears to be worthless. Possibly because of the
GIGO phenomenon.
ARealConservative said:
Because an infant can't care for itself someone has to do something first in order for its survival for several months and even years after birth.
DISAGREED It would be technically more accurate to say:
FutureIncoming said:
Because an infant can't care for itself, it can only survive for several months and even years after birth if someone else does something first for it.
The distinction is, your phrasing indicates a kind of "it must be done, regardless" thing, while my phrasing points out that the infant's survival is not an Absolute Requirement. There are requirements associated with its survival, but the survival itself is not Inherently Required.
Have you got any rationale for why the survival of some random human infant is Inherently Required (as if the Universe would cease to exist if the infant died)? If not, then I recommend you be more careful and accurate in your phrasing, in the future.
ARealConservative said:
With no right to life, such killing is perfectly acceptable.
Now you appear to be illogically assuming that "killing" is identical to "neglecting". Sorry, but a deliberate action is
not the same thing as carelessness and forgetfulness.
You also seem to be illogically implying that the lack of a right to life is automatically the same thing as a death sentence. But I remind you of the existence of pets, which don't have person-class right-to-life, and which nevertheless tend to be cherished, not killed. CHOICE is involved. An abandoned pet may be adopted or put out of its misery. An abandoned human infant may also be adopted. Note than in Ancient Roman times deformed infants were typically abandoned, left to die of exposure. Those deaths did not keep Rome from having enough soldiers to conquer all their neighbors, and all their neighbors' neighbors.... What is the basis for insisting that an abandoned human infant
must be cared for, in an overpopulated world?
ARealConservative said:
You comfortable with that?
I'm quite comfortable with my logic,
some more of which is here. Your argument appears to be consist of Inadequate Data, Invalid Data, and Bad Logic.
----
All Pro-Life arguments against abortion involve Inadequate Data and/or Invalid Data and/or Bad Logic and/or Prejudice and/or Hypocrisy. So far I have yet to see any exceptions to that rule.
