I am pro-life: Change my mind!

I am open to changing and questioning my views on everything. I believe that you have to be in order to be a rational human being.

I am pro-life in regards to abortion. As we already know, human life begins at the point of conception, and it seems, to me, to be wrong to end that human life for whatever reason. My position is a deontological position; I am not concerned with any consequent utility from killing the unborn as I don't believe you can morally justify the killing of an innocent human being.

I am open to changing and questioning my views on everything.
I am not concerned with any consequent utility from killing the unborn

If you believe that you have a strong argument from a pro-choice perspective, please challenge me.

What if the mothers life Is at risk if the pregnancy continued ?

The reality is that in the UK women have, with various caveats, the right to an abortion. This has come about because those opposed to abortion lost the intellectual and ethical arguments a long time ago. The overwhelming majority of the population supports the right to an abortion.

So why would we care that you are anti-abortion and be concerned with changing your mind?

If those that are opposed to abortion sincerely want to see abortion law changed in this country, then they are going to have to come up with some original and compelling arguments rather than the usual tiresome ones that are recycled from an Introductory Ethics course.

Are you opposed to contraception? If not, at what point do you think it's wrong to disrupt the process of a human life coming to be?

I think that pro-life and pro-choice people mostly just differ in where they draw that line.

Are you talking ideally or practically?
Ideally, I would like there to be no abortions. However, I recognise that this is simply not reasonable or realistic in practice.
Therefore we need to decide which abortions we consider acceptable under the circumstances.
For me, it is those that are medically and legally sanctioned under our current medical, psychological and social understanding.
Which abortions do you consider acceptable, in practical terms?


So I assume you are a vegan pacifist and absolutely opposed to capital punishment. A laudable position.

But just to clarify your philosophical position - you would allow 5 people die rather than pull the lever and only one die (the Trolley Problem).

Methinks you are not being entirely honest with us here.
You say you are "open to changing and questioning my views on everything", yet in the next breath tell us you are not prepared to consider opposing arguments.


If you believe that you have a strong argument from a pro-life perspective, please challenge me.
I am not prepared to consider the "but it's a human life" argument.

And regarding the question you asked about why you should care about changing my mind, this is more of an opportunity for you to see if you can justify and rationalise your beliefs in a public forum.

I was going to direct you to the many other abortion threads on TSR rather than rehashing the same ground, except I can see you've been active in them. Contrary to your claim that you are open to questioning your own views, you seem exceptionally intransigent in your perspective.

So why would I devote my Sunday to debating with someone who is stuck in their way of thinking when there is no likelihood of the current abortion status quo changing?

I am open to changing and questioning my views on everything. I believe that you have to be in order to be a rational human being.

I am pro-life in regards to abortion. As we already know, human life begins at the point of conception, and it seems, to me, to be wrong to end that human life for whatever reason. My position is a deontological position; I am not concerned with any consequent utility from killing the unborn as I don't believe you can morally justify the killing of an innocent human being.

If you believe that you have a strong argument from a pro-choice perspective, please challenge me.

So as someone in favour of being pro-life, are you ready to take on the consequences of people who conceive by accident? Would you adopt?

x

Steps must be taken to ensure that both parties come through unscathed. If the mother is in a serious predicament where medical intervention is necessary, then that intervention must be applied. If the baby tragically passes away because of the medical intervention, then I don't consider it an abortion, but actually an unfortunate consequence of the help that was provided to the mother. For it to be an abortion, it needs to be a deliberately intended procedure to end the baby's life.

Aside from the rather obvious bandwagon fallacy that you've provided,

can you come up with a compelling argument as to why the current abortion law of 1967 should stand?

And regarding the question you asked about why you should care about changing my mind, this is more of an opportunity for you to see if you can justify and rationalise your beliefs in a public forum.

I am not opposed to any contraception that prevents conception from happening. Before the point of conception, there is no value in the singular sperm or the singular egg, as they will never grow into a fully developed human being. However, a fertilised egg - if left to its natural processes - will grow into a fully developed human being if not prevented from doing so by violence.

From a pro-life standpoint, I believe that the line is objective and easy to point-out. Where do you draw the line as a pro-choicer and why?

I am speaking in practical terms. Regarding what abortions I consider "acceptable", I don't.

I am not a pacifist (violence can be justified in cases of self-defense),

and I believe in capital punishment (I don't assign value to humans that are guilty of first-degree murder or rape).

I don't feel that being against capital punishment or the meat industry is required for being pro-life.

You can be pro-life and not prescribe value to animals (though I would challenge them on that), and you can simultaneously be pro-life and be for the death penalty (innocence determines value).

Regarding the trolley problem, pulling the lever to deliberately end the life of a human being makes you morally culpable - so I wouldn't pull the lever. I don't consider the inaction of pulling a lever to make you morally culpable in the deaths of the five people.

I don't think it's wise to go into a discussion and assume your opponent is lying. I wouldn't do the same to you as it's not productive.

Just to clarify, I am not 100% on anything I believe in. For my pro-life views, I am 99% sure I'm right with them. I don't expect to have my mind changed, but I am open to having it changed. I don't know what else to say if you're not happy with that.

Okay, I'll challenge you:
There is a 9-year-old girl who suffers from a rare genetic condition where she cannot feel pain. She has also slipped into a temporary coma from which she will awake in 9 months. Is it morally justified, in your view, to pull the plug on her?

So as someone in favour of being pro-life, are you ready to take on the consequences of people who conceive by accident? Would you adopt?

It makes things easier if you reply to posters individually rather than lumping them all together.


So you are in favour of abortion in some cases, you just don't want to call it abortion.


Citing the law as a reasonable guide to what is acceptable is not the bandwagon fallacy.


Because it is a reasonable and practical solution to a problem that is supported by the majority of medical, psychiatric and social experts. (Before you try, citing expert opinion on an issue relating to their field of expertise is not an "appeal to authority"). The law is not intended to please everyone. It is intended to best address problems.
Can you come up with a compelling argument as to why the current law is wrong?


Same applies to you. From experience you usually resort to appeals to emotion.


Question begging. Seems you are setting up arbitrary divisions to suit your existing position. A sperm and egg will grow into a human if not prevented by contraception. How do you justify your position to those who insist that contraception is preventing a human life from developing?


For elective abortions it should be the earliest point that a foetus can survive outside the womb, for obvious reasons.
For medical abortions there should be no limit, for obvious reasons.


So you would allow the mother and foetus to die rather than abort the foetus.
Kinda makes a mockery of your claim to be "pro-life".


So if you support killing a grown, adult human to save the life of another, why won't you support killing a foetus to save the life of another? Seems pretty hypocritical.


So you are not actually pro-life. In reality you are "pro-death" for people who you have decided don't deserve to live. Agin, the lack of consistency is alarming.


Of course you don't, because your argument is based on appeal to emotion rather than practical reason and logic or genuine concern for the wellbeing of others.


But to do so requires a breathtaking level of hypocrisy.


Nonsense. If you know those five will die if you don't pull the lever sending the trolley towards the one, and you deliberately refuse to pull the lever, the deaths of those five are just as much your responsibility as the death of the one would be. Simply saying "it wasn't my fault" is no defence. From the moment you know that you can save them, deliberately not saving them is the same as killing them.


I didn't "assume". I came to a conclusion based on the available evidence.
(BTW, I don't think you were lying, just not being entirely honest. Disingenuous, if you prefer)


So what you meant was "Try and change my mind. You won't, because whatever argument you present will be wrong, but have a go anyway".


You need to come up with an example where the subject is at least similar to an early-stage foetus.
How about a 9 year old who, since birth, has never displayed any sentience and cannot survive without intensive medical support. Should the parents be allowed to pull the plug? Yes.

You clearly haven't matured since we last debated this subject, so I won't be responding to your posts.

So as someone in favour of being pro-life, are you ready to take on the consequences of people who conceive by accident? Would you adopt?

I am not opposed to any contraception that prevents conception from happening. Before the point of conception, there is no value in the singular sperm or the singular egg, as they will never grow into a fully developed human being. However, a fertilised egg - if left to its natural processes - will grow into a fully developed human being if not prevented from doing so by violence.

From a pro-life standpoint, I believe that the line is objective and easy to point-out. Where do you draw the line as a pro-choicer and why?

Crikey!
I thought I had presented some pretty reasonable arguments and rebuttals, but ya definitely got me there.
Top debating bro!

I don't consider this to be relevant when it comes to whether or not abortion is morally justified, as it's just a utilitarian argument.