8
u/queen_nefertiti33 Jul 17 '23
The best argument against abortion and when life begins was from Shapiro whereby he provides a thought experiment.
"If someone was in a coma would it be alright to kill that person? Ok what if you knew with 99% certainty that the person was going to wake from their coma? How about if we knew they would wake up in let's say 9 months from now?"
Crowd goes wild.
1
u/PeterFiz Jul 20 '23
But a thought experiment is not an argument. In fact, it's strange that for all the focus on this issue, no constitutional, rights-based argument against abortion has ever been presented. Even Dobbs doesn't have it but it proceeded to repeal Roe anyway.
1
u/queen_nefertiti33 Jul 22 '23
You're talking about legal vs I'm talking about moral. Very different in some cases.
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (23)1
u/WhippersnapperUT99 Jul 20 '23
"If someone was in a coma would it be alright to kill that person? Ok what if you knew with 99% certainty that the person was going to wake from their coma? How about if we knew they would wake up in let's say 9 months from now?"
The problem with this argument is equating a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus to an already grown and developed person in a coma.
A person in a coma has a pre-existing personality and human level consciousness that would be present again if he woke up. In contrast a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus never possessed human consciousness, thoughts, nor a personality. You cannot "wake up" a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus and have a conversation with it.
1
u/queen_nefertiti33 Jul 22 '23
Nor can you wake a coma patient.
In the thought experiment you know both will one day become sentient beings.
Your argument is that because one was sentient before they are worth more even though we know they will both be sentient again?
15
Jul 17 '23
If human life has intrinsic worth, then abortion is murder.
If human life doesn't have intrinsic worth, then why should I care about your "bodily autonomy" ?
5
u/queen_nefertiti33 Jul 17 '23
Their counter argument to this kind of Kafka trap is that it's not a human life until it's born.
4
4
u/Delicious_Alfalfa_20 Jul 17 '23
Talk to former Va. Gov & OB/GYN about that. In a televised interview he made his case, as a doctor mind u, for keeping the born baby warm while they die after they are born. Not specific as to anomaly, just if the parent(s) didn’t want the child. No feeding, no meds, nothing. What happened to the hypocratic oath? That physician oath is named after Hypocrites.
1
u/WhippersnapperUT99 Jul 20 '23
I would argue that the issue is not whether it is human, but rather whether it possesses in current actuality that special, fundamental characteristic that separates humans from all other living entities - possession of a self-aware human level consciousness capable of abstract thought. It's our consciousness that makes us people and gives us identity.
The problem with a fertilized egg or fetus (no brain), an early stage fetus (barely functional and still forming brain), and a later stage fetus (developing and empty brain) is that they all lack anything resembling human level self awareness and at best have the level of consciousness of a goldfish. You cannot kill a person that does not exist and never existed.
→ More replies (2)1
u/WhippersnapperUT99 Jul 20 '23
If human life has intrinsic worth, then abortion is murder.
Nothing has "intrinsic" worth because "intrinsic" contradicts the concept of "value". Value is an abstract concept that requires someone to value and something to be valued.
A knife for example, does not have intrinsic value. An abandoned knife forgotten in a drawer may be of no value to anyone. To a chef the knife in his kitchen is a value. For the chef's three old child it is a potential negative (dis)value.
If human life doesn't have intrinsic worth, then why should I care about your "bodily autonomy" ?
Because you value your own life and you cannot survive without people upholding the abstract concept of individual rights. It's why we have these computers and keyboards to type on; without it none of this would exist and we would still be living like tribal hunter gatherers.
That freedom and liberty and being free from violence is good and necessary for human life (aka your own life), happiness, and prosperity does not come from people's wishes (subjectivism) nor writings on stone tablets (intrinsicism). Rather, it is objective; based on the facts of reality and man's metaphysical nature.
1
Jul 20 '23
Nothing has "intrinsic" worth because "intrinsic" contradicts the concept of "value".
I believe that human life has intrinsic worth. You could call it a conviction. Rights dont have a leg to stand on without this belief. Even if I am wrong, its still a hill worth dying on.
Value is an abstract concept that requires someone to value and something to be valued.
Are we, as people, not intrinsically someone and something?
A knife for example, does not have intrinsic value.
I'm not so sure about that, but putting a knife up against human life is clown-level false comparison.
Because you value your own life
So I intrinsically value my own life?
you cannot survive without people upholding the abstract concept of individual rights
And by extention, if I intrinsically value my own life, I must intrinsically value the lives of others. Least I repeat; Rights dont have a leg to stand on without believing that human life is worth anything.
it is objective; based on the facts of reality and man's metaphysical nature.
So after all this your make my case for me? What does "intrinsic" mean mate? We are naturally built to value human life. People's wishes and writings on stone tables are just examples and accounts of this very nature.
1
u/PeterFiz Jul 20 '23
OK, but murder is illegal because it's a rights violation.
Abortion is not a rights violation so calling it murder is just an appeal-to-emotion fallacy.
Not to mention that nothing really has intrinsic worth since worth/value/etc requires a valuer. But this is just a side point as "value," intrinsic or otherwise, is not at all how we should be determining legality.
1
Jul 20 '23
Abortion is not a rights violation so calling it murder is just an appeal-to-emotion fallacy.
You are terribly mistaken. Abortion always ends a life. As evidenced by the natural law. It denies a person of his right to live.
Not to mention that nothing really has intrinsic worth since worth/value/etc requires a valuer.
You presume consciousness doesnt constitute reality? The concept of value is manifest through consciousness, yes. We are conscious beings, and as such we intrinsically value. I value life. I think without the right to life every other right falls flat. If your life is worthless, then why should I give a damn about your "rights"?
But this is just a side point as "value," intrinsic or otherwise, is not at all how we should be determining legality.
This is rather absurd to me. How do you think we should determine legality, if not based on what we value? Value underlies perception. Please, do elaborate.
→ More replies (25)
10
u/Desh282 Jul 17 '23
I mean they are using the same logic that n*zis used to murder people they didn’t like
They called them sbhuman. And same with abortionists. They think people who are developing in the womb are sbhuman
→ More replies (4)
13
u/PlummandTrue Jul 17 '23
I hate abortion
I dont really hate the death penalty. There’s some nuance there.
4
u/Humpty-Dumpty-17 Jul 17 '23 edited Jul 17 '23
The death penalty-abortion incongruency is a failed argument.
They are not joined at the hip.
A baby in a mother's womb has committed no crimes. He or she simply wants to live, just as all pro-abortion people who are endorsing the murder of humans are alive.
Conversely, a perron condemned to the death penalty has been found guilty in a court of law of heinous crimes agonist their fellow man.
That is quite a difference.
On a personal note, I generally don't ascribe to the death penalty, although I do make a large swath of exceptions. Serial pedophilia, crimes against humanity, child killers, treason; those are deserving of the death penalty.
2
u/PlummandTrue Jul 17 '23
I’m interested in the last paragraph you wrote. You said you don’t “ascribe to the death penalty” but listed an array of crimes that you feel deserve it. Quite interesting you put pedophilia in the same category as treason. In fact I think you really to enjoy the death penalty after the broad spectrum you offered for which it should be used. Crimes against humanity is quite the list of crimes and I can’t sit here and say all of them deserve the death penalty.
Please make me understand this grandiose point of thought.
→ More replies (5)
8
4
u/SandwitchZebra Jul 17 '23
This implies that no one receiving the death penalty is ever innocent, which is an absolutely fucked way of thinking because, guess what, it happens
→ More replies (1)
1
1
1
u/PeterFiz Jul 20 '23
Abortion doesn't even violate rights.
On the other hand, any restrictions on abortion represent serious rights violations and should therefore be struck down as unconstitutional.
32
u/Poulito Jul 17 '23
Looks like a standard pro-life point of view to me. Why exactly are you low-effort asking for thoughts on a screenshot?