• 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!

Pro-life thought experiment

Marrybore

Marrybore

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2020
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
325
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Let's imagine a thought experiment, a moral dilemma: for some reason you must either kill 20 people, or one person, someone else not included in that 20. You're only involved in that you make the choice. As an outsider, you know that you will have to kill the 1 person rather than the 20 people (remember there's no option to not kill anyone at all), but if you were more heavily involved, if you were, for instance, that 1 person who has to be killed, you might think differently. But as someone who doesn't have to worry about being that 1 person, or being negatively impacted by this situation (save psychologically), you know the right thing to do is to kill the 1 person to save the 20 people. You have the advantage of being separate from the problem. It may be morally wrong to deny the right to life of the person you have to kill, and indeed, the fact that you know you'll never go through a similar situation as that person may make it even more morally wrong that you decide whether they live or die. But you know the right thing to do is to go with saving the 20 people even if it means something bad will happen to that 1 other person.
This is how male pro-lifers feel about abortion. They view themselves not as superior to women, but merely unbiased because they'll never have to give birth or become pregnant. This is what pro-choicers find morally abhorrent about pro-life men. But the pro-life men regard the foetus as more important than the mother (for some reason, perhaps because they view it as an innocent baby that doesn't deserve to be aborted), and while they understand women have a right to bodily autonomy, they believe the unborn child's right to life supersedes the rights of the mother. They think women are biased, because they're the ones at risk, and that male pro-lifers are perfectly reasonable for trying to stop women from aborting. They don't think they're superior to women, just that they know better in this instance because they don't have such a personal stake in the business.
I'm not a pro-lifer. But I'm just trying to understand what goes through the minds of pro-lifers: why do they insist on their view? A lot of them are not bad people. I think this analysis represents the mindset of the average pro-lifer (not counting religious fanatics and actual misogynists - you know who you are. Well, actually, you probably don't).
 
tl:dr

You didnt even use paragraphs.





This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
Marrybore said:
Let's imagine a thought experiment, a moral dilemma: for some reason you must either kill 20 people, or one person, someone else not included in that 20. You're only involved in that you make the choice. As an outsider, you know that you will have to kill the 1 person rather than the 20 people (remember there's no option to not kill anyone at all), but if you were more heavily involved, if you were, for instance, that 1 person who has to be killed, you might think differently. But as someone who doesn't have to worry about being that 1 person, or being negatively impacted by this situation (save psychologically), you know the right thing to do is to kill the 1 person to save the 20 people. You have the advantage of being separate from the problem. It may be morally wrong to deny the right to life of the person you have to kill, and indeed, the fact that you know you'll never go through a similar situation as that person may make it even more morally wrong that you decide whether they live or die. But you know the right thing to do is to go with saving the 20 people even if it means something bad will happen to that 1 other person.
This is how male pro-lifers feel about abortion. They view themselves not as superior to women, but merely unbiased because they'll never have to give birth or become pregnant. This is what pro-choicers find morally abhorrent about pro-life men. But the pro-life men regard the foetus as more important than the mother (for some reason, perhaps because they view it as an innocent baby that doesn't deserve to be aborted), and while they understand women have a right to bodily autonomy, they believe the unborn child's right to life supersedes the rights of the mother. They think women are biased, because they're the ones at risk, and that male pro-lifers are perfectly reasonable for trying to stop women from aborting. They don't think they're superior to women, just that they know better in this instance because they don't have such a personal stake in the business.
I'm not a pro-lifer. But I'm just trying to understand what goes through the minds of pro-lifers: why do they insist on their view? A lot of them are not bad people. I think this analysis represents the mindset of the average pro-lifer (not counting religious fanatics and actual misogynists - you know who you are. Well, actually, you probably don't).
Click to expand...

I guess the prolifers You describe do not understand what Bodily autonomy is about.

Self-determination And body autonomy is about the woman electing her fate.

If she is forced by law to carry a pregnancy, her fate has not been elected.


Held to a fate against her will. Deprived of the right to get out of the situation. Unable to refuse the work involved. Receiving no compensation. That's the very essence of slavery.
Click to expand...

By Kent Pitman
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
I guess the prolifers You describe do not understand what it like to be denied bodily autonomy.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. They have no idea, and yet they think they no better, secure in the knowledge that they'll never themselves be denied bodily autonomy.
 
Marrybore said:
That's the problem. They have no idea, and yet they think they no better, secure in the knowledge that they'll never themselves be denied bodily autonomy.
Click to expand...

such people do not care. Men or women. They value the life of the unborn above that of the women. Rights, laws, morality, bodily autonomy, anything. They will concede 'for the life of the mother' and yet that doesnt save women from dying during pregnancy or chlldbirth. Women still do, it's not predictable nor always preventable. I have a friend who died completely unexpectedly having her 2nd kid. It's always a significant risk.

But that doesnt matter to such people. The entirety of her life is less important than the entirety of the unborn's (coming) life. I dont know why they believe the unborn is more deserving of a potential future than women...and the only explanation usually forthcoming is...'she asked for it when she opened her legs."



This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
minnie616 said:
I guess the prolifers You describe do not understand what Bodily autonomy is about.

Self-determination And body autonomy is about the woman electing her fate.

If she is forced by law to carry a pregnancy, her fate has not been elected.

By Kent Pitman
Click to expand...

Sometimes what men do not understand is that they are not the ones dealing with a pregnancy. A man's physical health is not potentially compromised when a woman becomes pregnant.
 
Marrybore said:
Let's imagine a thought experiment, a moral dilemma: for some reason you must either kill 20 people, or one person, someone else not included in that 20. You're only involved in that you make the choice. As an outsider, you know that you will have to kill the 1 person rather than the 20 people (remember there's no option to not kill anyone at all), but if you were more heavily involved, if you were, for instance, that 1 person who has to be killed, you might think differently. But as someone who doesn't have to worry about being that 1 person, or being negatively impacted by this situation (save psychologically), you know the right thing to do is to kill the 1 person to save the 20 people. You have the advantage of being separate from the problem. It may be morally wrong to deny the right to life of the person you have to kill, and indeed, the fact that you know you'll never go through a similar situation as that person may make it even more morally wrong that you decide whether they live or die. But you know the right thing to do is to go with saving the 20 people even if it means something bad will happen to that 1 other person.
This is how male pro-lifers feel about abortion. They view themselves not as superior to women, but merely unbiased because they'll never have to give birth or become pregnant. This is what pro-choicers find morally abhorrent about pro-life men. But the pro-life men regard the foetus as more important than the mother (for some reason, perhaps because they view it as an innocent baby that doesn't deserve to be aborted), and while they understand women have a right to bodily autonomy, they believe the unborn child's right to life supersedes the rights of the mother. They think women are biased, because they're the ones at risk, and that male pro-lifers are perfectly reasonable for trying to stop women from aborting. They don't think they're superior to women, just that they know better in this instance because they don't have such a personal stake in the business.
I'm not a pro-lifer. But I'm just trying to understand what goes through the minds of pro-lifers: why do they insist on their view? A lot of them are not bad people. I think this analysis represents the mindset of the average pro-lifer (not counting religious fanatics and actual misogynists - you know who you are. Well, actually, you probably don't).
Click to expand...

Anyone who perceives a fetus as a born baby is not very bright.
 
calamity said:
Anyone who perceives a fetus as a born baby is not very bright.
Click to expand...

That's also a problem.
But I'm trying to get into the mentality of male pro-lifers here. If you were a male pro-lifer, and you believed people were killing innocent babies, you'd try to stop it, right? But these pro-lifers are mistaken about so many things, like thinking foetuses are babies.
 
Marrybore said:
That's also a problem.
But I'm trying to get into the mentality of male pro-lifers here. If you were a male pro-lifer, and you believed people were killing innocent babies, you'd try to stop it, right? But these pro-lifers are mistaken about so many things, like thinking foetuses are babies.
Click to expand...
I think actively participating in debates on abortion is one way to "try and stop it". Although, if there are people out there who genuinely believe that an extinction scale genocide of humans (albeit fetuses) was truly occurring, they would not be able to sleep at night. They would be out burning down clinics.

There is probably some really interesting psychology to this, but it's not like you will discover it here.
 
Triton said:
I think actively participating in debates on abortion is one way to "try and stop it". Although, if there are people out there who genuinely believe that an extinction scale genocide of humans (albeit fetuses) was truly occurring, they would not be able to sleep at night. They would be out burning down clinics.

There is probably some really interesting psychology to this, but it's not like you will discover it here.
Click to expand...

There are actually people who burn down abortion clinics. You hear about them on the news occasionally.
 
Marrybore said:
There are actually people who burn down abortion clinics. You hear about them on the news occasionally.
Click to expand...
Good for them. At least they aren't virtue signalling.
 
Marrybore said:
That's also a problem.
But I'm trying to get into the mentality of male pro-lifers here. If you were a male pro-lifer, and you believed people were killing innocent babies, you'd try to stop it, right? But these pro-lifers are mistaken about so many things, like thinking foetuses are babies.
Click to expand...

Yes, the key is that they are being misled into believing a fetus is something it is not. Personally, I would be pissed at those who manipulated me in such a fashion.
 
calamity said:
Yes, the key is that they are being misled into believing a fetus is something it is not. Personally, I would be pissed at those who manipulated me in such a fashion.
Click to expand...

And yet once they've been manipulated, they never seem to be able to become unmanipulated. Why is that?
 
Marrybore said:
And yet once they've been manipulated, they never seem to be able to become unmanipulated. Why is that?
Click to expand...

Very few people have the mental fortitude to admit they’ve been conned. Just look at your average Trump supporter for evidence of that.
 
Marrybore said:
And yet once they've been manipulated, they never seem to be able to become unmanipulated. Why is that?
Click to expand...

Well, you've been manipulated into believing premeditated extermination is OK as long as it's what the woman wants. Reckon anyone can reverse that?
 
WCH said:
Well, you've been manipulated into believing premeditated extermination is OK as long as it's what the woman wants. Reckon anyone can reverse that?
Click to expand...

No, we just understand the difference between fact and bull****. Your post is hyperbolic bull****.

When it comes to looking at the big picture, abortion is no big deal. However, forcing women who do not want a baby to carry a pregnancy to term is.
 
WCH said:
Well, you've been manipulated into believing premeditated extermination is OK as long as it's what the woman wants. Reckon anyone can reverse that?
Click to expand...

Perhaps. It's still a complex issue, but the only arguments I've heard from pro-lifers so far are either religious or are irrational claims that the unborn child is a baby, without backing this claim up with any scientific proof.
 
calamity said:
No, we just understand the difference between fact and bull****. Your post is hyperbolic bull****.

When it comes to looking at the big picture, abortion is no big deal. However, forcing women who do not want a baby to carry a pregnancy to term is.
Click to expand...

Says the god-less Commie.
 
Marrybore said:
Perhaps. It's still a complex issue, but the only arguments I've heard from pro-lifers so far are either religious or are irrational claims that the unborn child is a baby, without backing this claim up with any scientific proof.
Click to expand...

Do you deny it's life with as much potential as you had?
 
It's not really that difficult. It's called being self-less, a woman has lived and experienced life. the potential unborn child has not and deserves to experience life. Abortion is not killing a child, it’s terminating a potential human being. That’s it…
 
calamity said:
Anyone who perceives a fetus as a born baby is not very bright.
Click to expand...

Aside from immediate family & friends, I agree. I totally understand the anticipation of a new family member and the personalization involved there. But for strangers? That's creepy & intrusive at best to invest any emotions or individualization at all in strangers' unborn.




This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
WCH said:
Well, you've been manipulated into believing premeditated extermination is OK as long as it's what the woman wants. Reckon anyone can reverse that?
Click to expand...

Can you explain why it's wrong, despite the manipulatively-calculated, emotionally-loaded words you chose?




This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
WCH said:
Do you deny it's life with as much potential as you had?
Click to expand...

Maybe. Only maybe. Is it morally right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will, destroying or damaging the actual contributions, potential being fulfilled of the woman gestating it?

Which is it "more moral" to protect? The potential contributions or the actual, ongoing contributions (since you used 'potential' as your example)




This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom