Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Questions for pro-lifers

Varrack
Posts: 2,688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2018 11:46:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
1. Assuming you don't believe women should not be tried for murder for undergoing an abortion, why should the standard of punishing the taking of life be lower for such women? Does this not imply that abortion is fundamentally different from homicide?

2. If fertilized eggs are morally equivalent to born humans, why aren't we devoting tremendous research dollars to stopping miscarriages? Why isn't the assumption that a miscarriage isn't equally as tragic as a death of a born human ever acknowledged publicly, inside and out of the pro-life camp?

It seems that pro-lifers really do exhibit a deep sense that a fetus has an appreciably lower status than an actual person.
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 6,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2018 3:37:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2018 11:46:40 PM, Varrack wrote:
1. Assuming you don't believe women should not be tried for murder for undergoing an abortion, why should the standard of punishing the taking of life be lower for such women? Does this not imply that abortion is fundamentally different from homicide?

2. If fertilized eggs are morally equivalent to born humans, why aren't we devoting tremendous research dollars to stopping miscarriages? Why isn't the assumption that a miscarriage isn't equally as tragic as a death of a born human ever acknowledged publicly, inside and out of the pro-life camp?

It seems that pro-lifers really do exhibit a deep sense that a fetus has an appreciably lower status than an actual person.

That is an excellent observation, I agree
kevin24018
Posts: 6,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2018 1:31:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2018 11:46:40 PM, Varrack wrote:
1. Assuming you don't believe women should not be tried for murder for undergoing an abortion, why should the standard of punishing the taking of life be lower for such women? Does this not imply that abortion is fundamentally different from homicide?

2. If fertilized eggs are morally equivalent to born humans, why aren't we devoting tremendous research dollars to stopping miscarriages? Why isn't the assumption that a miscarriage isn't equally as tragic as a death of a born human ever acknowledged publicly, inside and out of the pro-life camp?

It seems that pro-lifers really do exhibit a deep sense that a fetus has an appreciably lower status than an actual person.

I don't have a dog in this fight fyi, but I would think you have to choose your battles and prioritize. Undoubtedly some to believe they should be charged with murder. But if you priority is to end abortion or make it illegal, that's the first step, once that is done then you'd have to determine the punishment for breaking that law. baby steps.
Bennett91 the liar http://www.debate.org...
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2018 8:34:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/1/2018 1:31:42 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 4/28/2018 11:46:40 PM, Varrack wrote:
1. Assuming you don't believe women should not be tried for murder for undergoing an abortion, why should the standard of punishing the taking of life be lower for such women? Does this not imply that abortion is fundamentally different from homicide?

2. If fertilized eggs are morally equivalent to born humans, why aren't we devoting tremendous research dollars to stopping miscarriages? Why isn't the assumption that a miscarriage isn't equally as tragic as a death of a born human ever acknowledged publicly, inside and out of the pro-life camp?

It seems that pro-lifers really do exhibit a deep sense that a fetus has an appreciably lower status than an actual person.

I don't have a dog in this fight fyi, but I would think you have to choose your battles and prioritize. Undoubtedly some to believe they should be charged with murder. But if you priority is to end abortion or make it illegal, that's the first step, once that is done then you'd have to determine the punishment for breaking that law. baby steps.

I'm on board with Varrack's object of proving anti-abortionists in the wrong, but the actual argument seems very dubious as a piece of logic. As a pro(with some reservations)-abortionist I can give a B+ for what Varrack tried to do but a big F for the actual argument itself.
kevin24018
Posts: 6,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2018 8:40:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/1/2018 8:34:41 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 5/1/2018 1:31:42 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 4/28/2018 11:46:40 PM, Varrack wrote:
1. Assuming you don't believe women should not be tried for murder for undergoing an abortion, why should the standard of punishing the taking of life be lower for such women? Does this not imply that abortion is fundamentally different from homicide?

2. If fertilized eggs are morally equivalent to born humans, why aren't we devoting tremendous research dollars to stopping miscarriages? Why isn't the assumption that a miscarriage isn't equally as tragic as a death of a born human ever acknowledged publicly, inside and out of the pro-life camp?

It seems that pro-lifers really do exhibit a deep sense that a fetus has an appreciably lower status than an actual person.

I don't have a dog in this fight fyi, but I would think you have to choose your battles and prioritize. Undoubtedly some to believe they should be charged with murder. But if you priority is to end abortion or make it illegal, that's the first step, once that is done then you'd have to determine the punishment for breaking that law. baby steps.

I'm on board with Varrack's object of proving anti-abortionists in the wrong, but the actual argument seems very dubious as a piece of logic. As a pro(with some reservations)-abortionist I can give a B+ for what Varrack tried to do but a big F for the actual argument itself.

yeah i mean it's a pretty personal thing and a lot of variables, seems the premise was going for the "gotcha!" and I don't think it's really there. Depending on the circumstances, killing a person carries a wide (imo) degree of punishments as it stands now. I don't think some solid conclusion can be drawn on the listed assumptions.
Bennett91 the liar http://www.debate.org...
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2018 8:58:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/1/2018 8:40:39 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
yeah i mean it's a pretty personal thing and a lot of variables, seems the premise was going for the "gotcha!" and I don't think it's really there. Depending on the circumstances, killing a person carries a wide (imo) degree of punishments as it stands now. I don't think some solid conclusion can be drawn on the listed assumptions.

I think you are right on the money. I started a post about what I thought the errors were but then thought 'What's the point?' and stopped.
ken1122
Posts: 1,737
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2018 4:11:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2018 11:46:40 PM, Varrack wrote:
1. Assuming you don't believe women should not be tried for murder for undergoing an abortion, why should the standard of punishing the taking of life be lower for such women? Does this not imply that abortion is fundamentally different from homicide?

I believe the position they would take is it becomes murder when the fetus becomes a person. Now as far as when personhood begins, that"s the debate.

2. If fertilized eggs are morally equivalent to born humans, why aren't we devoting tremendous research dollars to stopping miscarriages? Why isn't the assumption that a miscarriage isn't equally as tragic as a death of a born human ever acknowledged publicly, inside and out of the pro-life camp?

I doubt they would consider fertilized eggs to be morally equivalent to born humans
Varrack
Posts: 2,688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2018 11:01:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/1/2018 8:58:49 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 5/1/2018 8:40:39 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
yeah i mean it's a pretty personal thing and a lot of variables, seems the premise was going for the "gotcha!" and I don't think it's really there. Depending on the circumstances, killing a person carries a wide (imo) degree of punishments as it stands now. I don't think some solid conclusion can be drawn on the listed assumptions.

I think you are right on the money. I started a post about what I thought the errors were but then thought 'What's the point?' and stopped.

Thank you for the completely useless posts.
Varrack
Posts: 2,688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2018 11:05:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2018 4:11:42 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 4/28/2018 11:46:40 PM, Varrack wrote:
1. Assuming you don't believe women should not be tried for murder for undergoing an abortion, why should the standard of punishing the taking of life be lower for such women? Does this not imply that abortion is fundamentally different from homicide?

I believe the position they would take is it becomes murder when the fetus becomes a person. Now as far as when personhood begins, that"s the debate.

2. If fertilized eggs are morally equivalent to born humans, why aren't we devoting tremendous research dollars to stopping miscarriages? Why isn't the assumption that a miscarriage isn't equally as tragic as a death of a born human ever acknowledged publicly, inside and out of the pro-life camp?

I doubt they would consider fertilized eggs to be morally equivalent to born humans

https://prolifeaction.org...
the_fab_hatter
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2018 2:50:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
As it is currently not illegal to have an abortion we should not punish women who have abortions now. If however it does become illegal I feel that women who do still get an abortion should be charged with involuntary manslaughter as they most likely aren't doing it do end the life of the soon to be child but are still preventing the chance for the child to live.

I don't quite understand where you are going with your second question. We award research grants for what will either further opportunity for business or if the majority of the public wants it. As neither of these really apply to miscarriages it makes perfectly logical sense that we aren't giving out grants to prevent them. Society doesn't deem it profitable or enough of a problem to focus on preventing.
Sonofcharl
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2019 6:41:11 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Virtually all Pro-lifers are hypocrites.
They are selectively pro-life, Only for the lives that they are specifically concerned about.
They will happily dismiss other lives, Without a thought or care.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.