3 ms·

The pro life position is really simple: 1. Baby murder is wrong 2. Abortion is murdering a baby 3. Therefore abortion is wrong That’s it. There is no requireme

by tjs8rj 4y ago

The pro life position is really simple: 1. Baby murder is wrong 2. Abortion is murdering a baby 3. Therefore abortion is wrong That’s it. There is no requirement to meet some perceived bar of empathy beyond that for this to be a good faith argument. “I bet you think shooting innocent people in the head is wrong, but yet you don’t volunteer at the soup kitchen every weekend, so do you ACTUALLY care about innocent people or are you just trying to control others?” Do you see how that’s a ridiculous non-sequitur? That’s the argument you just made against pro life people.

autoexec 4y ago
There's a difference between not volunteering at the soup kitchen every weekend even when you don't like innocent people getting shot in the head, and actively fighting to stop staving people from getting food when you say you don't like innocent people getting shot in the head. You can have a deep respect for innocent life and not be willing or able to spend weekends in a soup kitchen. You can't have a deep respect for innocent life while working to keep innocent lives from being able to survive. "Baby murder is wrong" unless it's murder by exposure because the child was homeless, "screw the homeless!" the pro-life say or by starvation because screw the hungry! or by cancer, because screw the sick if they can't afford obscene medical costs! Pro-life people generally, don't care at all about the life of babies. They don't even care about murder. If baby food companies are killing kids by poisoning them with heavy metals they'll still decry any government regulations that would prevent that or hold baby food companies accountable. The Free Market can murder babies all day long. School shootings? No, we can't have sensible gun control laws proven to work in basically every developed nation around the globe! The pro-life say we just have live with those murders, nothing can be done! So tragic! They want to claim the moral high ground but they are buried deep under their own filth.
- floxy 4y ago
  Just for the non-US persons reading along, below are a few US Federal government programs for poor people. Some states (most?) have additional programs as well for some things, or supplement federal programs. - WIC (https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic) >The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) provides federal grants to states for supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and to infants and children up to age 5 who are found to be at nutritional risk. WIC serves about half of all infants born in the United States. - Food Stamps (SNAP - https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program) - Medicaid (Health care for poor people) https://www.medicaid.gov/ - Section 8 subsidized housing (https://www.benefits.gov/benefit/710)
  - trs8080 4y ago
    Are you of the belief that the conservatives who support overturning Roe also support WIC, SNAP, Medicaid, and Section 8 housing? Because the traditional conservative viewpoint is that these programs should be completely eliminated. I believe this is what OP is referring to - the same people who supposedly believe in the sanctity of human life are also the first to cut any programs that support it. So it's difficult to take their "pro-life" arguments in good faith.
  - DoreenMichele 4y ago
    All those programs have a reputation for being wholly inadequate. Better to let a woman abort a baby she's not prepared for for than tell her "But you will qualify for aid programs!"
camgunz 4y ago
It's not unreasonable to ascertain people's positions by their actions. "pro-life" really isn't as simple as you're making it sound. Only something like 15-18% of Americans support a total ban on abortion with no exceptions. So if we're limiting "pro-life" to only that position, then it's by definition a pretty extreme position, in fact most people would call it ridiculous: it's so extreme that it's very easy to ridicule. If we widen a little to allow exceptions, well is that really "pro-life" anymore? Then you get into situations where you have to say, "well I think it's a life, therefore ending that life is killing, but the pregnant person will die if forced to carry the fetus to term, so... I guess killing is OK?". It's pretty weird. Further, if the goal of pro-life Americans is to lower the number of abortions, here are policies we know work: - sex education - access to contraception - support for parents and children (financial, educational, medical/mental health) Oddly very very few pro-life Americans support any of this, which forces us to question their motives.
iostream24 4y ago
You polemically insisting that a fertilized egg is a baby is the basis of your reductionist “ view outlined above. Blatant antidemocratic power grabs and attempts to replace democracy with theocracy rank rather low on my moral scale. This Supreme Court has also just thrown out Miranda rights out the window and stomped on New York’s attempt to limit concealed weapon carries. States rights my foot! It’s unfair that Obama couldn’t even get Merrick Garland appointed with two terms in office, but Trump GOT THREE JUSTICES JAMMED THROUGH IN ONE TERM! Unprecedented and dangerous. They all lied to congress about their intentions during confirmation too. Immoral! You will surely reap the whirlwind from what you sowed
haswell 4y ago
> The pro life position is really simple... > That’s it. There is no requirement to meet some perceived bar of empathy beyond that for this to be a good faith argument. You seem to be saying that because the argument is simple, it's in good faith, but this is not how good faith arguments work, nor is it aligned with the common understanding of "good faith". Pregnancy is not simple. The circumstances surrounding conception are often not simple. The post-birth reality for many kids is anything but simple. Our medical/scientific understanding of the development of a fetus is anything but simple. To simply ignore the 2nd and 3rd order effects that result from the "simple" position of a pro life person is to willfully ignore the complexity of this issue. This willful ignorance by definition renders the argument unqualified to be considered good faith. The simplicity of an argument is not an excuse for ignoring the complexity of the issue. In general, a "good faith" argument is built from a foundation of common understanding between all involved parties. A good faith argument acknowledges complexities and offers its own solutions. A good faith argument isn't made by covering one's ears and pretending those complexities don't exist. To claim that "X argument is good faith because it's simple" is in itself a bad faith argument, or at best, uninformed about what good faith is generally expected to mean in discourse.

by tjs8rj 4y ago

autoexec 4y ago

There's a difference between not volunteering at the soup kitchen every weekend even when you don't like innocent people getting shot in the head, and actively fighting to stop staving people from getting food when you say you don't like innocent people getting shot in the head. You can have a deep respect for innocent life and not be willing or able to spend weekends in a soup kitchen. You can't have a deep respect for innocent life while working to keep innocent lives from being able to survive. "Baby murder is wrong" unless it's murder by exposure because the child was homeless, "screw the homeless!" the pro-life say or by starvation because screw the hungry! or by cancer, because screw the sick if they can't afford obscene medical costs! Pro-life people generally, don't care at all about the life of babies. They don't even care about murder. If baby food companies are killing kids by poisoning them with heavy metals they'll still decry any government regulations that would prevent that or hold baby food companies accountable. The Free Market can murder babies all day long. School shootings? No, we can't have sensible gun control laws proven to work in basically every developed nation around the globe! The pro-life say we just have live with those murders, nothing can be done! So tragic! They want to claim the moral high ground but they are buried deep under their own filth.

floxy 4y ago
Just for the non-US persons reading along, below are a few US Federal government programs for poor people. Some states (most?) have additional programs as well for some things, or supplement federal programs. - WIC (https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic) >The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) provides federal grants to states for supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and to infants and children up to age 5 who are found to be at nutritional risk. WIC serves about half of all infants born in the United States. - Food Stamps (SNAP - https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program) - Medicaid (Health care for poor people) https://www.medicaid.gov/ - Section 8 subsidized housing (https://www.benefits.gov/benefit/710)
- trs8080 4y ago
  Are you of the belief that the conservatives who support overturning Roe also support WIC, SNAP, Medicaid, and Section 8 housing? Because the traditional conservative viewpoint is that these programs should be completely eliminated. I believe this is what OP is referring to - the same people who supposedly believe in the sanctity of human life are also the first to cut any programs that support it. So it's difficult to take their "pro-life" arguments in good faith.
- DoreenMichele 4y ago
  All those programs have a reputation for being wholly inadequate. Better to let a woman abort a baby she's not prepared for for than tell her "But you will qualify for aid programs!"

camgunz 4y ago

It's not unreasonable to ascertain people's positions by their actions. "pro-life" really isn't as simple as you're making it sound. Only something like 15-18% of Americans support a total ban on abortion with no exceptions. So if we're limiting "pro-life" to only that position, then it's by definition a pretty extreme position, in fact most people would call it ridiculous: it's so extreme that it's very easy to ridicule. If we widen a little to allow exceptions, well is that really "pro-life" anymore? Then you get into situations where you have to say, "well I think it's a life, therefore ending that life is killing, but the pregnant person will die if forced to carry the fetus to term, so... I guess killing is OK?". It's pretty weird. Further, if the goal of pro-life Americans is to lower the number of abortions, here are policies we know work: - sex education - access to contraception - support for parents and children (financial, educational, medical/mental health) Oddly very very few pro-life Americans support any of this, which forces us to question their motives.

iostream24 4y ago

You polemically insisting that a fertilized egg is a baby is the basis of your reductionist “ view outlined above. Blatant antidemocratic power grabs and attempts to replace democracy with theocracy rank rather low on my moral scale. This Supreme Court has also just thrown out Miranda rights out the window and stomped on New York’s attempt to limit concealed weapon carries. States rights my foot! It’s unfair that Obama couldn’t even get Merrick Garland appointed with two terms in office, but Trump GOT THREE JUSTICES JAMMED THROUGH IN ONE TERM! Unprecedented and dangerous. They all lied to congress about their intentions during confirmation too. Immoral! You will surely reap the whirlwind from what you sowed

haswell 4y ago

> The pro life position is really simple... > That’s it. There is no requirement to meet some perceived bar of empathy beyond that for this to be a good faith argument. You seem to be saying that because the argument is simple, it's in good faith, but this is not how good faith arguments work, nor is it aligned with the common understanding of "good faith". Pregnancy is not simple. The circumstances surrounding conception are often not simple. The post-birth reality for many kids is anything but simple. Our medical/scientific understanding of the development of a fetus is anything but simple. To simply ignore the 2nd and 3rd order effects that result from the "simple" position of a pro life person is to willfully ignore the complexity of this issue. This willful ignorance by definition renders the argument unqualified to be considered good faith. The simplicity of an argument is not an excuse for ignoring the complexity of the issue. In general, a "good faith" argument is built from a foundation of common understanding between all involved parties. A good faith argument acknowledges complexities and offers its own solutions. A good faith argument isn't made by covering one's ears and pretending those complexities don't exist. To claim that "X argument is good faith because it's simple" is in itself a bad faith argument, or at best, uninformed about what good faith is generally expected to mean in discourse.