I haven’t debated any pro-legalized abortionists online for a while, so I had enjoyed this exchange at an allegedly secular site. I say allegedly because they kept bringing religion into the debate even though I was using secular arguments, and as usual they ignored the fact that the “Christian” Left is wildly pro-legalized abortion, and even taxpayer-funded abortion (because we need to have more abortions so we can keep abortion safe, legal and . . . er . . . uh . . . rare). The topic was the Mississippi personhood proposal.
These are very typical arguments made by the pro-legalized abortionists. Anyone can learn to refute them with a little practice. No need to call names and use logical fallacies like they do. Just be clear and firm. Lather, rinse, repeat.
The thread went on even longer, so go to the link if you want it all.
Does life begin at conception? The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled last week that Mississippi voters can decide in November.
Kieres43p· Oh really? Then pray tell why does Judaism say otherwise?
Personhood USA, like most anti-choice organizations, doesn’t give much indication of their concern for women or children, just embryos. Nowhere on their site do they discuss how they are working to make abortion less desirable, or to help women to raise children they can’t afford to support.
So women who have been raped should be forced to carry the baby to term?
Said another way, so the daughter of a rapist can be destroyed because of his crime? Does the abortion un-do the rape?
Hey, if you want to give the death penalty to the rapist I’d consider your arguments. But don’t kill the innocent offspring.
What kind of embryos are those? Human, of course, as in “human beings, at a particular stage of development.”
At no point do they boast about how many of their members have selflessly adopted unwanted children, or advocate for support of Head Start or other programs to help young poor kids.
By “support Head Start,” do you mean you support it with your own money, or “support” asking the government to take taxes by force to fund it? There is a big difference.
Finally, what if the government was going to “solve” homelessness by killing all homeless people. Could you protest the immorality of that without being obligated to house the homeless yourself? Of course you could. In the same way, pro-lifers can object to the killing of the unborn all they like without being obligated to adopt all the children that they didn’t create.
Having said that, pro-lifers do many things with their own time and money to help those outside the womb. There are more pregnancy centers than abortion clinics, and the pregnancy centers are almost always funded by donations and mostly staffed with volunteers. They give all their services for free, while the abortionists make incredible amounts of money.
ANd yet those same “pro-lifers” kvetch and moan at the thought of having to pay higher taxes to take care of all those kids.Sorry, last time I checked, this is not a theocracy. Kindly treating it like one.
So, Neil, you and the other pro-life crowd are willing to see your taxes jacked through the roof to pay for the children’s health care, their homes, their food, their education, right?After all..if you’re going to sit there and demand that women do what you tell them and give birth to those babies because you say so then you’re willing to pay for it, right?That means you pay for prenatal care, their health care as kids, teens, up to adults. If the mother is working lots you’ll pay for the kids daycare right? And if the mother can’t afford to send the kids to a good school you’ll pay for that too? And you’ll also agree to pay for welfare where necessary, right?Oh and college too..you’ll be ponying up the money for that too right?Time for you and your fellow “pro-lifers” to actually prove that you give a damn about life after its born. So put up and pay up or shut up, Neil.
You see, your attempted logic is that if I don’t raise the children to adulthood then I can’t complain about the immorality of them being destroyed. But you have to live by your logic as well. Could you protest the destruction of toddlers without having to adopt them and raise them?
Cute attempt at adding college to the mix.
Now, are you going to keep repeating your fallacy or are you going to answer my question?
Sorry, last time I checked, this is not a theocracy. Kindly treating it like one.
My premise is simple: Abortion kills an innocent human being. It is wrong to kill innocent human beings for 99% of the reasons given for abortions. Therefore, those abortions are wrong.
I’ll be glad to discuss Jesus’ views on the topic if you like, but I typically save those for those claiming to be Christians.
And even if my religious views align with my secular views, that doesn’t discount them in any way. Or do you think that stealing, murder, perjury, etc. have to be made legal because laws against them currently agree with the Bible?
Personhood USA and many other religiously-motivated anti-choice activists want to control women’s reproductive health decisions
Neil asks: who even want to force others to pay for abortions via taxpayer-funded killing?Which would be a valid point if I didn’t have to pay for stupid wars and the death penalty. Point? We all pay for stuff we don’t like, Neil.
Oh and by the way….no federal funding goes to any abortion.
The above is being said by the person who is conveniently ignoring the fact that he doesn’t get to force others how to live.
Yes, and that was said by someone who has conveniently ignored it when I asked if you think it should be illegal to steal and murder. So I’ll ask again: Do you think it should be illegal to steal and murder? If so, are you forcing others how to live? Are you forcing your religion on them because the Bible says not to steal and murder?
Here’s a challenge: Answer the questions without changing the subject again.
I appreciate you playing along. Having a pro-abort make all these bad arguments on a secular site is like gold to me. I just hope lots of authentically middle ground people read the thread and realize how you have dodged all my simple questions and just responded with hypocritical personal attacks.
But since you’re so interested, Neil, in science and science fact…you might want to look up this term in science: Parasite.
I actually like when pro-aborts use the “parasite” argument. It may get virtual high-five’s from other pro-aborts, but it is so transparently bad that it reveals to the middle-ground folks just how perverse the pro-abort thinking is. It is like a concession speech.
Of course those who use this argument ignore pure scientific facts about the unborn being unique human beings so they can take an overly broad definition of the term “parasite” to dehumanize the unborn. It smacks of desperation.
This doesn’t always work, but I typically point out that their view would mean that the baby could be fully delivered but still be attached via the umbilical cord and she would still be a “parasite.” Therefore, you could kill her any way you liked. Or even kill the child as she is breast feeding, since that would fit their loose definition of parasite. They have usually painted themselves in a corner by that point and may actually agree that they’d be OK with that. Again, I’m glad to let the middle ground see that kind of immoral thinking. People who advance that argument are extremely unlikely to be moved from their position, but they aren’t the target audience of most pro-life reasoning.
Most pro-legalized abortion arguments — and especially ones like the “parasite” argument — are based on emotions and ignore the humanity of the unborn (human zygote, human fetus, etc.). They trade on sentiments how the woman (or child) will be impacted in the areas of poverty, education, love life, etc.
When doing pro-life reasoning training I always start by distinguishing between the psychological complexity of the abortion issue (financial, educational, family pressures, etc. issues are real and powerful and need to be addressed) and the moral simplicity of it (you shouldn’t kill innocent human beings for any of those reasons, regardless of how intense they are).