• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why being called a "pro-lifer" is not accurate

Patriotic Voter

Patriotic Voter

Smarter than trolls
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
30,488
Reaction score
8,841
Location
Flaw-i-duh
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Every so-called "pro-lifer" says the same thing: a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus are all a baby that has no reason to be denied a natural, live birth. There are many fallacies with their logic, but one of them is rarely addressed. I want to focus on it specifically as a separate part of the "what happens to fetuses/babies" issue.

If testing reveals the fetus has a fatal defect that will make it nonviable or cause death in a short amount of time, if not stillborn, what should its parents do?

Anti-choicers completely ignore this situation. All this time they claim to want fetuses to become babies, their real goal is to force the mom to carry a nonviable fetus and lose her newborn baby. This is not being pro-life at all. It is just being ant-choice. The only loving and responsible thing to do is end the pregnancy early if the parents and obstetrician know if born, the baby will spend most or all of its life in the hospital.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Every so-called "pro-lifer" says the same thing: a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus are all a baby that has no reason to be denied a natural, live birth. There are many fallacies with their logic, but one of them is rarely addressed. I want to focus on it specifically as a separate part of the "what happens to fetuses/babies" issue.

If testing reveals the fetus has a fatal defect that will make it nonviable or cause death in a short amount of time, if not stillborn, what should its parents do?

Anti-choicers completely ignore this situation. All this time they claim to want fetuses to become babies, their real goal is to force the mom to carry a nonviable fetus and lose her newborn baby. This is not being pro-life at all. It is just being ant-choice. The only loving and responsible thing to do is end the pregnancy early if the parents and obstetrician know if born, the baby will spend most or all of its life in the hospital.
Click to expand...
To be fair to Pro Lifers, their case is not really against rare excpetions such as severe deformities or stillborns, but to "general abortion".

As I see it, Pro Lifer's main contradiction lies in that their logic means that I have the right to attach myself to you without you having the right to defend yourself from me. Npw, if the claim is that you actually do have the right to "remove" me in this situation, it means there are limits to the "right to life" even to them.
 
Christian pro-lifers do not even allow for severe medical defects. I discussed the issue on a Christian message board that also has an abortion subforum. They think it is totally un-Christian to rather have an abortion than a babu on life support. I got a warning after I expressed strong disagreement with the idea.

Where would you draw the line?
 
Blue Donkey said:
Christian pro-lifers do not even allow for severe medical defects. I discussed the issue on a Christian message board that also has an abortion subforum. They think it is totally un-Christian to rather have an abortion than a babu on life support. I got a warning after I expressed strong disagreement with the idea.

Where would you draw the line?
Click to expand...
I would not draw any line at all. Drawing the line is up to each and every individual couple and their respective doctor themselves to do. I would assume that most people who are unwillingly pregnant would not wait that long.
 
Dacke said:
I would not draw any line at all. Drawing the line is up to each and every individual couple and their respective doctor themselves to do. I would assume that most people who are unwillingly pregnant would not wait that long.
Click to expand...

These are all wanted babies. The mental pain would be excruciating for both parents.
 
Dacke said:
As I see it, Pro Lifer's main contradiction lies in that their logic means that I have the right to attach myself to you without you having the right to defend yourself from me.
Click to expand...

Saying "I have the right to attach myself to you" implies that a volitional decision was made, when that is not case. The baby didn't choose to be there, it's there entirely because of the mother's actions.
 
aociswundumho said:
Saying "I have the right to attach myself to you" implies that a volitional decision was made, when that is not case. The baby didn't choose to be there, it's there entirely because of the mother's actions.
Click to expand...
It takes two to tango - The woman does not get pregnant on her own unless she is Mother Mary. Since the couple in question did not agree to create a child, one cannot claim there was a contractual agreement to "invite" the baby into the womb. Of course, actions do consquences and when speaking of abortion, things get really blurry.

I advocate personal responsibility and know it is very easy to not get unqillingly pregnant - Either you do not have sex or you have sex, but you use contraceptives.
 
aociswundumho said:
Saying "I have the right to attach myself to you" implies that a volitional decision was made, when that is not case. The baby didn't choose to be there, it's there entirely because of the mother's actions.
Click to expand...

Entirely??? Was that a slip?


I think a man was involved. Lol
 
Dacke said:
It takes two to tango - The woman does not get pregnant on her own unless she is Mother Mary.
Click to expand...

I don't see how that's relevant. It may take two to tango, but the one who resulted from the tango had nothing to do with its own creation.

Since the couple in question did not agree to create a child, one cannot claim there was a contractual agreement to "invite" the baby into the womb.
Click to expand...

The fact that you have to put the word invite in scare quotes makes my point again. There can be no invitation, because the person you are inviting does not yet exist.
 
aociswundumho said:
I don't see how that's relevant. It may take two to tango, but the one who resulted from the tango had nothing to do with its own creation.
Click to expand...
It is relevant because you claimed the hypthetical woman got pregnant "entirely on her own".

The fact that you have to put the word invite in scare quotes makes my point again.There can be no invitation, because the person you are inviting does not yet exist.
Click to expand...
Exactly. This is why consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
 
Dacke said:
It is relevant because you claimed the hypthetical woman got pregnant "entirely on her own".
Click to expand...

No, I didn't. I said the baby got there entirely because of the mother's actions, and it did.

Exactly. This is why consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Consent doesn't even matter. Even in a pregnancy caused by rape, the baby didn't choose to be there.
 
aociswundumho said:
No, I didn't. I said the baby got there entirely because of the mother's actions, and it did.



Consent doesn't even matter. Even in a pregnancy caused by rape, the baby didn't choose to be there.
Click to expand...
So you are not against abortion?
 
aociswundumho said:
No, I didn't. I said the baby got there entirely because of the mother's actions, and it did.



Consent doesn't even matter. Even in a pregnancy caused by rape, the baby didn't choose to be there.
Click to expand...

Entirely? Are you kidding???? Lol
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Then stop making them.


The above is commonly referred to as “a logical fallacy”.
Click to expand...

But then again look at where the Western ways of doing things have placed the West....look at how profoundly the Western ways of doing things have failed the people.

Kindly take your ill founded arrogance and take a hike.

tyvm
 
Dacke said:
It takes two to tango - The woman does not get pregnant on her own unless she is Mother Mary. Since the couple in question did not agree to create a child, one cannot claim there was a contractual agreement to "invite" the baby into the womb. Of course, actions do consquences and when speaking of abortion, things get really blurry.

I advocate personal responsibility and know it is very easy to not get unwillingly pregnant - Either you do not have sex or you have sex, but you use contraceptives.
Click to expand...

The couple did agree to have a child.

Contraception has absolutely nothing to do with it. They wanted a baby. The fetus was known to be nonviable after birth if given a chance during the pregnancy.
 
Last edited:
Hawkeye10 said:
But then again look at where the Western ways of doing things have placed the West....look at how profoundly the Western ways of doing things have failed the people.

Kindly take your ill founded arrogance and take a hike.

tyvm
Click to expand...
Look at how quickly you’ve lost track of the conversation (totally unsurprising, of course).

Time for you to return to the kiddie pool. :2wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom