Interesting. It reminds me how one way to truly test someone who is pro abortion is to ask if someone who physically assaults a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarriage should be charged with murder. Their answer usually tells you all you need to know about them.
Seems like now there is a question for both sides.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
The dude himself even admits embryos have value, so he kinda tanks his own argument given that an abortion isn't a question of whether or not a human child dies or if an embryo dies.Still better then the several other shitty pro-choice arguments I've seen.
Thinking about it more...I do see some flaws. A lot of people against abortion are in favor of it if the mothers life is in danger. If they are willing to put the mother above the fetus, I can't see why they wouldn't be willing to put a child above embryos in a life and death situation.
So actually wait, this is kind of retarded lol. It doesn't take into account people tend to be against an abortion when it's being done for no other reason than the person was irresponsible with their sex life. I am sure some are hardcore and would say even if the mothers life is at risk she can't abort it, but most are not that extreme.
So this seems quite silly, they have already shown they will put the mothers life ahead of the fetus, so the embryo thing is weird. It assumes everyone against abortion would be against it in any circumstance, that is the only way I can interpret the life and death scenario the guy put forth.
So this seems like something where on the surface it makes sense...until you thik more about it and it starts to fall apart.
Originally posted by Surtur
Interesting. It reminds me how one way to truly test someone who is pro abortion is to ask if someone who physically assaults a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarriage should be charged with murder. Their answer usually tells you all you need to know about them.Seems like now there is a question for both sides.
Assuming there is a way to prove that the assault caused the miscarriage without a doubt, no I still don't think that's quite the same as murder.
Originally posted by Surtur
Thinking about it more...I do see some flaws. A lot of people against abortion are in favor of it if the mothers life is in danger. If they are willing to put the mother above the fetus, I can't see why they wouldn't be willing to put a child above embryos in a life and death situation.So actually wait, this is kind of retarded lol. It doesn't take into account people tend to be against an abortion when it's being done for no other reason than the person was irresponsible with their sex life. I am sure some are hardcore and would say even if the mothers life is at risk she can't abort it, but most are not that extreme.
So this seems quite silly, they have already shown they will put the mothers life ahead of the fetus, so the embryo thing is weird. It assumes everyone against abortion would be against it in any circumstance, that is the only way I can interpret the life and death scenario the guy put forth.
So this seems like something where on the surface it makes sense...until you thik more about it and it starts to fall apart.
I'm pro-life but absolutely support abortion in the case of danger to the mother's life.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Assuming there is a way to prove that the assault caused the miscarriage without a doubt, no I still don't think that's quite the same as murder.
I agree, problem is people have indeed been charged for causing the death of a fetus. So in a state where that is possible abortion should be illegal. You can't murder something that isn't a life.
Originally posted by Surtur
Thinking about it more...I do see some flaws. A lot of people against abortion are in favor of it if the mothers life is in danger. If they are willing to put the mother above the fetus, I can't see why they wouldn't be willing to put a child above embryos in a life and death situation.So actually wait, this is kind of retarded lol. It doesn't take into account people tend to be against an abortion when it's being done for no other reason than the person was irresponsible with their sex life. I am sure some are hardcore and would say even if the mothers life is at risk she can't abort it, but most are not that extreme.
So this seems quite silly, they have already shown they will put the mothers life ahead of the fetus, so the embryo thing is weird. It assumes everyone against abortion would be against it in any circumstance, that is the only way I can interpret the life and death scenario the guy put forth.
So this seems like something where on the surface it makes sense...until you thik more about it and it starts to fall apart.
good job, squirt 👆
that's why nobody on the pro-life side can seem to confront it honsestly and answer it. because as the author states: it's obvious to everyone that the correct answer is to save the child, vs 1000 embryos and vs 1000000 embryos.
someone wanna prove the author wrong without all the weaponized fallacies?
A stupid comparison.
Many would probably save a child over 1,000 full grown adults. No one was ever arguing human beings are able to form attachments with an unborn child in the same way they form one with children.
It's like asking, would you save 1,000 people or your own child? Or 1,000 babies, or your baby.
Originally posted by cdtm
Many of those 1,000 full grown people would probably wish the child saved over themselves, too.Very idiotic. But feelings usually are.
Yes, but we're not talking about each of those adults' opinion. We're talking about a dispassionate, logical means of minimizing suffering. 1,000 adults wins over one child. End of story.
I was talking about the books logic. If there's another argument going on, I'm not in it.
My main point is, yes, we feel differently about a fetus then we do with a baby we can hold in our arms, or a child we can see or conceptualize.
Just like we feel.differently about a middle aged homeless begger junkie or a bright eyed child with the world ahead of them. (Edit: Or what Bently said. Good one.. 👆 )
It's an unfair comparison to prove a political point.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
no, he really didn't.anyone want to actually confront the question with intellectual honesty?
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
that's why nobody on the pro-life side can seem to confront it honsestly and answer it. because as the author states: it's obvious to everyone that the correct answer is to save the child, vs 1000 embryos and vs 1000000 embryos.someone wanna prove the author wrong without all the weaponized fallacies?
Tag, nothing "intellectual" here. You're talking about feelings.