Home - List All Discussions

Some basic Questions

by: pray4em

- Why is it so important to be pro-life?

- How do I become an effective member of the pro-life movement?

- What is the Pro-life verse Pro-choice battle really all about?

- Why should pro-choicers change there view?

- OK if these aren't the right questions then what are they?

reply from: yoda

There are many different ways to ask the questions about abortion. Yours are as good as any. My basic question is "How much value do you place on innocent human life?" ProLifers always give a very high value, proaborts always a very low value. That, to me, is the basic question.

reply from: RePit

Mostly true. Except the part about the pro-aborts.

Pro-aborts call themselves pro-choice. Why? Because even they will tell you abortion is not always the right choice. Do you see "pro-aborts" telling every pregnant woman that they should have an abortion? Even if they have endured standing on their heads after sex, magical herb teas, folic acid supplements and numerous cycles of fertility treamtment? No. Do "pro-aborts" have children? Yes.

Pro-aborts do not always give a very low value to the unborn. But sometimes they do. And other times the unborn has a very high value. To a prolifer this seems fickle, because they value human life very highly regardless of anything else.

But it is a very good question nevertheless - "How much value do you place on a human life?". Nevermind the innocent part, that is irrelavant. I want to know why as a prolifer, you think a foetus/unborn life should be valued very highly.

reply from: Christian4life

Just goes again to show the hypocritical and skitzophrenic tendancies of the pro-choice side. If the pro-choice mother wants her unborn child, she'll call it a BABY while in the womb, show ultrasound pictures to her friends, talk to it, read to it, sing to it.

If not, she'll pay someone to rip it's head off and pull it out of her in pieces. It is just an "it", a "product of conception" a "fetus". But certainly not thier own son or daughter. Certainly not a BABY.

On the contrary, a pro-life woman sees all her children as what they are, her children, and takes care of them to the best of her ability from the moment their lives begin.

I have seen "pro-choice" people try to raise money to save little "non-human products of conception" preemies who cannot live outside of incubators along with March of Dimes. I have seen them brag about thier living children and mention "I had another son which I excersiced my freedom of choice on".

reply from: dignitarian

Repit:

You say; “I want to know why as a prolifer, you think a foetus/unborn life should be valued very highly.”

An unborn child has value for the same reason any other being of human origin has value; human value is assumed to be INTRINSIC. This is a basic assumption typically recognized by any civilized society.

It is true that we may from time to time effectively fail to support this assumption, but we do so at our own peril.

Assumption of Intrinsic human worth is the ONLY rational basis for the inalienability of the basic rights of human existence; Life, Liberty, and Happiness.

Whenever we (as a culture) fail to insist upon INTRINSIC human value, in effect we fail to uphold the most foundational and profoundly important political principle in existence.

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: RePit

So, you are saying the life of an unborn has an intrinsic value, that is placed on it by our culture.

On what basis does our culture give a human life intrinsic value?

reply from: dignitarian

Wow!

Where would you like me to start?

Dig

reply from: dignitarian

RePit:

Your question implies a profound lack of background on a deeply pervasive issue.

I am compelled to provide a comprehensive response.

Tomorrow you will have an answer.

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: RePit

if it's explained elsewhere, I am happy to read it if you give me a link.

i'll be back in a few days to check you response.

reply from: dignitarian

RePit:

I see you are still here.

I can give you a link and I will provide a response to your question, but in the meantime I would like to suggest that you missed my point.

Regarding intrinisic human worth, whether you believe in it or not or whether you understand it or not is not the issue. I had a strong suspicion you might have a problem with this concept in any regard.

My point was that the concept of inalienablitity of rights is simply not compatible with a notion of personhood that is based upon materialistic and superficial measurements. No subjective assumptions are necessary to arrive at this conclusion. This is an objective necessity. On the basis of reason, you can't have the one and not the other.

Therefore if you believe in the undeniability of the basic rights of human existence, you are necessarily a fan of intrinsic human worth.

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: RePit

[quote]concept of inalienablitity of rights is simply not compatible with a notion of personhood that is based upon materialistic and superficial measurements.[/quote]

too many big words, me no understand... sorry....

reply from: dignitarian

RePit:

Why doesn't this suprise me?

Dig

reply from: dignitarian

RePit:

As you suggested, here is a link to a great web site on the intrinsic worth of personhood. http://www.lifeprinciples.net/MessageOverview.html

Dig

reply from: dignitarian

Repit:

This means that bad guys can't kill you any time they want as long as we all(as a culture) believe that there is something good about you.

Dig

reply from: RePit

ahh ok. So an example of an inalienable right is the right to live.

And the value of a person/personhood cannot be measured materialistically. Because the value cannot be measured materialistically, people have inalienable rights. Is that what you are saying?

You don 't have to answer that right now, I am reading the link you gave and it looks pretty good and is just what I was looking for. It may have the answer.

reply from: yoda

That's the same silly arguement that comes up every so often. You claim that "proabort" means favoring abortion for all pregnancies, which is patently ridiculous. It is simply short for "proabortion", which means favoring abortion rights, period:

pro-a·bor·tion adjective - favoring legal access to abortion: in favor of open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736813

I think the main problem comes from the fact that those who DO favor abortion rights generally do NOT want to be associated with the word "abortion" in any shape, form, or fashion. When's the last time you heard anyone use the term "pro-abortion rights" to describe their position?

Because I am egalatarian.... that is to say I think that all humans have equal moral rights, and therefore NO human has the right to take the life of another (save in self-defense, which of course DOES involve the concept of innocence).

Why do you think that any human has the moral right to take the life of a baby?

reply from: pray4em

Repit,
Don't forget went you speak of people that were single cell beings at one time that you too are a member of that crowd.

reply from: dignitarian

RePit:

You asked.

(Quote)

“On what basis does our culture give a human life intrinsic value?”

(Unquote”

Our founding fathers insisted that intrinsic human worth was among the truths held as “self-evident”; i.e. “that all men are created equal”, but it is not surprising that in today’s cultural climate this might actually no longer be quite so self-evident to some of us. The banality of your questions clearly demonstrates as much.

It is only thus that I offer the following.

The clearest basis for intrinsic human worth is our experience associated with the greatest expression of human powers. It isn’t simply that a human being can think, as we know many other members of the animal kingdom can do as much (to some extent anyway). Rather, it is that the greatest expression of human powers includes qualities that appear to defy a mere biological entity.

For instance one of our greatest human powers is the desire to know what is true. This desire interestingly is not limited to just the truths needed to satisfy our biological needs. Instead, we can observe man to be passionate about pursuing every possible answer to every possible question in the universe.

A similar thing can be observed in man’s capacity to be self-giving in love. However, someone remarked to me once that higher animals too, for example, can actually also be willing die for one another, especially for their young. However in the case of man, this trait cannot so easily be explained on account of mere and obvious biological reasons, for as man can think clearly enough, he knows exactly what in fact he is giving up for another. Thus man, it is clear can inexplicably devote his every material resource (and spiritual if one is inclined in this direction) to a person or a “truth” in complete defiance of mere biological explanation.

No need to rewrite the book on this, after all it’s not like it hasn’t already been done before. However, along similar lines we can include man’s curious desire to achieve what is perfectly good, fair, and just.

We can also include man’s insatiable desire for discovering exactly what it is that constitutes perfect beauty.

And above all we have observed man’s mysterious desire to explore his ultimate meaning and purpose within eternity. BASED ON REASON, MAN HAS DEEMED ANYTHING LESS AS ULTIMATELY FUTILE.

These are among the greatest powers of human expression as these are the powers that most definitively characterize us as distinctively human, but most interestingly these powers seem to defy mere biological explanation. Of course not all human beings express these powers, but because they are so exclusively human, we must conclude they represent the deepest and most pervasive aspects inherent within our very nature.

Some people insist that these powers are the result of a soul, while others will insist they simply exist within our DNA. Whatever one might think their cause, reason insists that nevertheless these powers do exist and they are inherently human. Thus they must exist in some mysterious way in every being of human origin.

The basis upon which our culture has traditionally granted intrinsic human worth is basically to accommodate acknowledgement of such reflection upon the nature of human beings.

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: dignitarian

RePit:

In response to the above, it looks like we are actually making at least a little bit of progress.

Although I can't agree with your deductive exercise given above, at least it appears you are on the right page.

Regarding the link I submitted, if your interest in such subjects is sincere, you might find a lot more than you were looking for.

Dig

reply from: bradensmommy

Is it just me or does it seem funny that when pro-aborts log in to this forum they use clowns as thier avatar....

reply from: dignitarian

Bradensmommy:

It's funny you should mention this. No pun intended.

I've been saving this particular silver bullet for just the right time, but you got to it first.

I too, suspect they are unaware that the clown, since it is overused as the most common icon of choice for typical anti pro-life antagonists on this forum, tends to effect a self imposed belittlement rather than lend indignity to the pro-life cause.

In other words, it doesn't work for them. Good point.

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: bradensmommy

Bradensmommy:

It's funny you should mention this. No pun intended.

I've been saving this particular silver bullet for just the right time, but you got to it first.

I too, suspect they are unaware that the clown, since it is overused as the most common icon of choice for typical anti pro-life protagonists on this forum, tends to effect a self imposed belittlement rather than lend indignity to the pro-life cause.

In other words, it doesn't work for them. Good point.

Regards,

Dignitarian

hehe, sorry for beating ya to the punch, I just am noticing it more and more as I'm reading the threads!

reply from: RePit

----------
Yodavatar;
[quote]
That's the same silly arguement that comes up every so often. You claim that "proabort" means favoring abortion for all pregnancies, which is patently ridiculous. It is simply short for "proabortion", which means favoring abortion rights, period:

pro-a·bor·tion adjective - favoring legal access to abortion: in favor of open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736813
[/quote]

Yoda, oh so wise...

But it's inconsistant with what you say earlier;

[quote]
ProLifers always give a very high value, proaborts always a very low value.
[/quote]

Now go back and read my post where I responded to this comment.

-----------

Dignitarian;

Thank you for responding to my question. It may take me a while to digest this food for thought, and I might be back with more questions. At a quick read, I still don't quite understand, but it is good to know you will be here to answer my questions.

-----------

bradensmommy

have a look at the first post. This post shows the topic of the thread. Is one of the questions;

- Why do pro-choicers commonly use a clown as their avatar?

No. Now I am here, asking you questions to try to understand the pro-life point of view. I have asked some very fundamental questions, and I believe the answer to these questions form the basis of the whole pro-life argument. Such an important question - surely you have pondered it yourself? Or perhaps you have not - hence why you want to talk about clowns. If you want to talk about clowns, that's fine with me, but I would appreciate if you start another thread.

-------------

all pro-lifers;
I am not here primarily to argue with you. That does not interest me, I know I would be preaching to the converted. I am here because I want to understand the prolife justification. If I have to continue to scroll through troll posts to get to the answer of such an important, fundamental question, I will leave this site. If you are happy in your little prolife world, snickering among yourselves how stupid pro-choicers/pro-aborts are, that's fine by me, I will leave. If you want to show a pro-choicer why they are wrong, well now is your chance. I think I have shown so far I am willing to listen, and fact is; I am.

reply from: dignitarian

RePit:

You say.....

all pro-lifers;

I am not here primarily to argue with you. That does not interest me, I know I would be preaching to the converted. I am here because I want to understand the prolife justification. If I have to continue to scroll through troll posts to get to the answer of such an important, fundamental question, I will leave this site. If you are happy in your little prolife world, snickering among yourselves how stupid pro-choicers/pro-aborts are, that's fine by me, I will leave. If you want to show a pro-choicer why they are wrong, well now is your chance. I think I have shown so far I am willing to listen, and fact is; I am.

My response to the above is that I promise to answer any serious questions as best I can.

Dig

reply from: domsmom

RePit~ Is what your asking basically "why should I be a person who values life?" Or strictly unborn life? Can you not see the detriment to society if more people than not thought that way? Eventually (and sooner rather than latter, I'd say) those who have the most power will be devaluing mine and your life. I suppose then everyone would be in an uproar. But it wont matter for us either.

reply from: dignitarian

RePit:

In response to the above, it looks like we are actually making at least a little bit of progress.

Although I can't agree with your deductive exercise given above, at least it appears you are on the right page.

Regarding the link I submitted, if your interest in such subjects is sincere, you might find a lot more than you were looking for.

Dig

RePit

PS: I should have remarked that your first statement; "ahh ok. So an example of an inalienable right is the right to live." is absolutely correct.

Dig

reply from: dignitarian

RePit:

You have insisted (at least up to a few days ago anyway) that the unborn child has no value in and of himself.

Thus far we have already exchanged several messages on this subject, but I would like to resurrect something from one of my recent posts. The point being; if we insist upon the unborn having no worth we should also be interested to see where such a premise may take us. See below.

Dr. Peter Singer of Princeton University is among the world's most preeminent specialists in the field of bioethics. Please read below what Dr. Peter Singer has to say about the right to life.

(As quoted from Fr. Robert Spitzer’s “Healing the Culture”. Emphasis is mine.)

(Quote)

"IF THE FETUS DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME CLAIM TO LIFE AS A PERSON, IT APPEARS THAT THE NEWBORN BABY DOES NOT EITHER, and the life of the newborn baby is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee...if we can put aside....emotionally moving but strictly irrelevant aspects of the killing of a baby we can see that the grounds for not killing persons do not apply to newborn infants. ... If we must have a point at which the developing human being has the same right to life as you or me ...this right, I would suggest, emerges gradually during the first few months after birth."

(Unquote)

Dr Singer, by the way, is exactly the kind of so-called expert our legislators and courts will turn to when the issue of the right to life once again reaches our highest powers in government.

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: pray4em

Yoda and concernedparent,
Thanks for your feedback, I think its important to know the simple basics and know what they are to others. I suppose its only fair for me to give my own answers.

- Why is it so important to be pro-life?
Because a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. We are selves don't want to be abandoned so it's only fair to make sure no one else is treated in the same way.

- How do I become a beter pro-lifer?
I can start by placing myself in the place of the unborn, and saying I will not be free until everyone is free.

- What is the PL vs. PC battle really all about?
On a personal and spiritual level its a battle between fear of what might go wrong and faith that things will work out. On a political level I think it boils down to a battle between money and morality.

- Why should pro-choicers change their minds?
Because abortion is a method of birth control that kills an unborn child and is unhealthy for the mother.

- Another good question would be, why should Roe vs. Wade be overturned?
Because it is unjust, immoral in many if not every way, and unfair because we all were single cell beings at one time. RvW is a law that was wrongfully legislated from the bench, was a misrepresentation of the original client, and is not settled law because of its growing opposition. Also because 1,000,00 abortions every year should not be considered an effective means of birth control by any standard.

reply from: pray4em

I agree, I'm here first to learn how to be a better pro-lifer, then to give my input when it seems like the right thing to do.

reply from: RePit

A few questions - hope these will not stray from the topic too far; they could probably have a thread each.

You speak of inalienable rights. The right to living is one of these rights. Are there more inalienable rights? What are the other rights? How have they been determined?

Looking at some of the responses and the web link (good site BTW) you say human life should be protected basically because humans are special. The site compares humans and animals together and humans come out superior (who's being a nazi now?)

Assertion: We as humans cannot understand humans - particularly the human mind and emotion. Emotion is unique to humans.

Conclusion: Therefore all human life should be protected.

I don't see how that assertion and conclusion follow.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Other inalienable rights include liberty and the pursuit of happiness, in that order in regards to importance. These rights were determined by God, according to the Founding Fathers.

In regards to the animal and human comparison, I (and this is just me) think that animals are inferior. They have no thought process, nor true emotion; they act purely on instinct. On the other hand, humans have superior intellect over all species of animals, and they can feel emotion. In other words, they are special. We've been able to create an incredible amount of things, whereas other animals can't.

Sorry to get off the subject, but I couldn't resist addressing that.

P.S. I'm glad that you're willing to listen, RePit.

reply from: dignitarian

RePit:

Your first question is a rational one, and I offer the following as an answer.

According to the US Declaration of Independence, inalienable rights include Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. According to Locke these rights also include a right to property. Essentially, these are the basic rights determined to be necessary for one to actualize (make real) the fundamental aspects of our human nature. We are talking about the minimum that is necessary to express what it means to be human.

In anticipation of a next potential question; these rights are listed in an order of priority; i.e. the ordering of these rights has a special significance in terms of their prioritization. For example, Life is a necessary condition for the possibility of Liberty, and Liberty is a necessary condition for the possibility of the right to own Property. Thus, in the event of a conflict in these rights it is an objective necessity of reason that the more fundamental right be upheld. By the way, if one thinks about this for at least 10 seconds, he can see that this is an absolute imperative within a just society.

Your next question is a little bewildering about the humans, animals, and Nazis thing. If I take you seriously, I am almost led to believe that if I kill chickens for food, I am a Nazi. Nevertheless, I think I do understand the rhetorical nature of your statement/question and I will attempt to answer as best I can.

In the philosophy of pro-life, the only comparison between the nature of human beings and the nature of animals is intended to essentially assert that there is no such practical comparison. The one expresses an insatiable desire for searching the intangibles of truth, love, goodness, beauty, and eternal being, while the other falls asleep. The human being expresses a desire for eternal meaning and purpose that no animal gives a hoot about. This is a concept that is central to the mystery of our existence; i.e. just how is it that a coding of proteins can create the endless reality of the human desire for the perfect, the absolute, and the eternal? This is so undeniably a mystery that even the atheist must (and does) insist it is a mystery.

You, on the other hand, might very well insist that the above assertions are nonsense and thus the entire meaning of our human existence is nothing more than the random glob of chemicals we call our bodies. But if you do, keep in mind what you are insisting on; i.e. absolutely no basis for the inalienability of the basic rights of human existence; absolutely no rational cause for human compassion and self-less love; absolutely no basis for the principle of human equality; and absolutely no basis in reason for the pursuit of true justice.

You suggest I am a Nazi because I dare to propose humans are superior to animals.

I would suggest I would be a Nazi if I didn't.

Regards,

Dignitarian





reply from: RePit

Nah, i'm not talking strictly of unborn life, I mean any life. Life is valuable, but different people have different value. Unborns who are unwanted by thier mother are worth next to nothing. It's not about who has the most power either, it's all about how society values human life. If you understood the way I think, you will see it is not to the detriment of society. I don't want to get into explaining my stance yet because it takes a long time to explain, I could write a book on it. Anyway - this is pro-life forum, and I respect that i'm not in my own territory, and i am here to listen to what prolifers think. If you really want to hear my explanations, maybe I will get into it later. For the time being I want to understand the pro-life perspective, because at the moment it makes no sense to me.

reply from: RePit

Re: Nazi's

yeah that was sort of a joke. The thing is - whenever I explain the way I think society values human life, and that it is not valued equally, I am accused of being a Nazi. Pro-lifers very commonly accuse pro-choicers of being Nazis. Just trowel through some prolife sites and eventually you will get to comparisons of abortion with the holocaust. But if you give extra rights to humans on the basis you believe they are suprerior over animals, fundamentally there isn't much difference to that than giving extra rights to Aryans because they are suprerior over other races.

edit:spelling

reply from: RePit

Re: life, liberty, happiness

I realise this is probably second nature to americans and you have probably had it drilled into you since kindergarden. Forgive me if I am a bit slow on this as I am not an American. ( Edit:that's why I spell foetus funny and why I post at 3 in the morning.)

But since this is "pro-life america" site, I will happily accept americanised arguments.

reply from: RePit

Me quote before:
---------
Assertion: We as humans cannot understand humans - particularly the human mind and emotion. Emotion is unique to humans.

Conclusion: Therefore all human life should be protected. Edit: and have the inalienable rights.

---------
Do you agree with this?

I still don't see how this follows. How do you come to that conclusion from that assertion?

reply from: RePit

Don't take the following too seriously.

Ever read Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy? Mice and dolphins are more intelligent than humans. Mice are actually experimenting on humans. How do you really know animals do not have this desire for searching truth etc.

Elephants are known to mourn the loss of other elephants - that mourning doesn't have a biological function. Dogs are loyal to their owners and will risk their life to save their owner, they wag their tail with happiness when the owner comes home. The latter may be a simple biological function, but you can never really know..... spooky.....

reply from: RePit

I would hit the dog of course! If it was a woman and a three-year-old, I'd hit the three-year-old. But like I said before - I won't get into why I would hit one over the other at the moment. I just want to know what prolifers think.

reply from: dignitarian

RePit

For whatever it is worth, read the UN Charter. It isn't much different in this regard.

Dig

reply from: yoda

If it wasn't worth the effort for you to repeat it here, it probably isn't worth my effort to go look for it.

Besides, the dictionary is NOT inconsistent with anything that is TRUE.......

reply from: yoda

Without the first one, the right to life, no other "right" has any meaning. As you have yet to respond to my statement on the moral right to life, so I will repeat it.

I believe in the principle of egalitarianism. I believe that no human has the right to take the life of another human, save in defense of his/her own life. Can you logically dispute that concept?

reply from: yoda

You concept of the value of human life is valid only if some humans are considered the property of other humans.

Do you endorse the conept of human ownership? Slavery?

reply from: domsmom

I suppose the fact that I would've hated for my mom to abort me, makes me feel like everyone should have a chance a a long, fulfilling life. She had every reason to abort me. She's very pro-choice (in 1st tri. only, not that that makes it any better), my dad was an abusive, cheating alchoholic. I wonder why the hell she did'nt do it! But I am SO glad she didnt. As I am sure most childen/people would be if you ask them.
Now I know what your thinking. If I had been aborted, I would never have known the difference. Maybe not. But I am so glad she respected my life enough not to kill me.
Blah, blah, blah. I guess what I'm trying to say is, to some, life is cheap. To others, every life is valuable; especially new, innocent life. If life is truely cheap to you, there's nothing anyone can say could make you understand. However, just because someone elses life does not matter to you, should not give you the right to kill them.

reply from: dignitarian

I agree, I'm here first to learn how to be a better pro-lifer, then to give my input when it seems like the right thing to do.

Dignitarian did not write the above.

reply from: dignitarian

RePit:

I will accept that the Nazi implication was not entirely serious. Nevertheless, it demonstrates an interesting spin in the world of reasoning. Let me try and see if I can follow it.

1. Nazis do not think people are equal.

2. Dignitarian does not think people are equal to animals.

3. Thus Dignitarian is a Nazi.

Now refer to the following for an example of reasoning that is more comprehensively deductive in its nature and thus obviously more valid.

1. Nazis do not think all people are equal.

2. Thus Nazis treat certain people like they are animals.

3. Dignitarian thinks that all people are equal.

4. But Dignitarian does not think animals and people are equal.

5. Thus Dignitarian does not treat people like animals.

6. Thus Dignitarian is not a Nazi.



However, something is actually interesting here in that the uppermost series of statements is also a perfect representation of the fractured inductive reasoning also necessary to justify killing the unborn. (just a coincidence?)



But back to business. The bottom line appears to be that you question how one can connect inalienability of rights, human equality, and true justice with the intrinsic human qualities that I have described. That's a fair question and I would normally be pleased to immediately offer an answer, but I am starting to detect a pattern here where I provide all the "game" while you merely get off a few potshots (like this brainless Nazi thing). In the interest of cutting more quickly to the chase, I propose the infinitely more obvious question; i.e. if intrinsic human worth must be denied, on what basis then is one compelled to uphold the cultural values of inalienable rights, compassion and love, human equality, and equal justice? An even fairer question, don't ya think?

Let me know.

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: RePit

If it wasn't worth the effort for you to repeat it here, it probably isn't worth my effort to go look for it.

Besides, the dictionary is NOT inconsistent with anything that is TRUE.......

Troll, it helps if you READ a post before replying to it.

If it's too much effort for you, then it's too much effort for me to read your non-sensical posts.

reply from: RePit

I agree, I'm here first to learn how to be a better pro-lifer, then to give my input when it seems like the right thing to do.

Dignitarian did not write the above.

see half way down second page - you stuffed your quote up, and i quoted/copied your stuff-up.
Everyone, I wrote the big paragraph above!

reply from: RePit

Without the first one, the right to life, no other "right" has any meaning. As you have yet to respond to my statement on the moral right to life, so I will repeat it.

I believe in the principle of egalitarianism. I believe that no human has the right to take the life of another human, save in defense of his/her own life. Can you logically dispute that concept?

<editied above quote for emphasis>

If I believe something, does that mean everyone else sould change what they believe, without myself even needing to justifying why I believe, but everyone should change what they beleive simply because I believe it?

I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, does that mean everyone else should believe it also?

How can I logically dispute your belief when it has no logic? You have not justified it logicallly? It's as impossible as you arguing to me that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist. How do you tell me otherwise, when it's simply my belief and I have not justified it?

reply from: RePit

You concept of the value of human life is valid only if some humans are considered the property of other humans.

Do you endorse the conept of human ownership? Slavery?

Troll!! I am not here to argue what I endorse or what I do not indorse!! Have you even read my posts as to my objective here! Get it through your thick head! I can justify what I have said above in a perfecty logical manner, But I am not here to do that, I am here to understand the pro-life stance. MMMMkay???

reply from: RePit

Both the above are the same logically. Which is the point I was trying to make. Discrimination is not always a bad thing, it's ok to deny the sale of alcohol to a 10-year-old. Discrimination that leads to killing is ok too - we kill animals for food. So put them both together, and this argument on it's own condones shooting chickens and shooting Jews. It doesn't make it right to kill Jews though. Why? Because of other factors. Simply because they are 'human'? Well that's the untimate question - which I can answer but like I said it takes a while to explain.

Yeah sorry about the Nazi thing - If you had just ignored it, I wouldn't have pushed it - it was a joke (but not a brainless one).

And that is a good question. It makes sense if you believe in the inalienable rights, and in the right order. I know how you get the order of inalienable rights, but I don't think the ordering of importance works in all cases. I think, if you don't have liberty, what is the point of living? I would rather die without liberty. You need liberty for quality of life - without quality of life, what is the point of life?

reply from: yoda

Take a look at the number of posts I've posted on this forum, clown, and tell me who is the troll here.

reply from: yoda

What a perfectly silly question. NO ONE asked you to dispute my beliefs, did they? But can you show me how they are illogical?

Can you make any logical case against egalitarianism?

reply from: yoda

Right, troll....... that's why you're insulting me with every other post, right? Helps you to understand me better, right?

BTW, the "pro-life stance" is dead set against your "babies are property" concept....... just to help you to "understand" us better.......

reply from: RePit

Yodavatar, I must apologise to you for not showing respect for your views. I believe that all men are not created equally, but they are created unique. As such, some are not very bright and have difficulty understanding basic concepts of logic. Because they have this difficulty and lower mental capacity, that is no reason not to respect thier views. So I apologise and will endevour to be more patient in the future.

Unlike any other respondants in this thread, it is clearly evident to me why you are pro-life, thank you for your contribution to this discussion.

reply from: dignitarian

RePit:

Point 1: Re: Your statement in rebuttal of my “Thus Dignitarian is a Nazi” logical sequences.

You claim: “Both the above are the same logically.”

Okay, so let me get this straight. Both logical sequences start with the same premise, they both can exist within the same world of facts (the first sequence simply chooses to ignore a few of the more significant ones), and they result in opposite conclusions, and yet you say they are logically the same? Well then based upon your system of reasoning I think I could almost “prove” anything I wanted regardless of any reality whatsoever. So what’s the point of all the dialog? In your world of thinking why would truth and reasoning even matter at all? (Rhetorical question – don’t bother to answer)

Point 2: Re: Your statement taking exception as to the universal nature of the principle of the objective ordering of rights.

You say: “…I don't think the ordering of importance works in all cases. I think, if you don't have liberty, what is the point of living? I would rather die without liberty. You need liberty for quality of life - without quality of life, what is the point of life?”

This issue is not based on mere “importance”; rather it has to do with OBJECTIVE NECESSITY. The point is that life is a NECESSARY CONDITION for the possibility for liberty to even exist, and not the other way around, thus in order to preserve liberty, we MUST preserve life. This is why life must be upheld as the more fundamental right. If we choose in practice to uphold the less fundamental right we ultimately end up protecting neither. This is an objective/rational truth. For you to say that you would rather die without liberty might be remarkable, but such a statement does not complement this exercise and thus your point is mute.

Look, I’m going to stop here for a while and make a general comment. I’ve responded in good faith to practically all of your questions and statements whether reasonable or only remotely so. I think my responses have been at least semi-intelligent, but I have to be honest at this point and admit I am disappointed in your responses. I don’t expect you to agree with me, but ya gotta come up with something better, at least for the sake of the dialog anyway.

Thanks and Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: dignitarian

RePit:

Regarding the question I posed to you a few messages back, your answer thus far that it is "a good question" really isn't what I had in mind. I already know it's a good question, in fact its proper answer is crucial to the ultimate good of the culture. I was actually asking you for an answer.

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: RePit

Sorry about that, I didn't word my response very well, and my response is incorrect. Your conclusions are 1. Dignitarian is a Nazi, and 2. Dignitarian is not a Nazi. So my post makes no sense in that context.

The whole point I was trying to make was not about Nazi's. It was about assigning rights based on how we value a life (animal or human or Jew), and whether or not that on it's own is wrong. It goes more like this;

1. RePit thinks people are not equal
2. RePit thinks unborn babies are worthless compared to grown people
3. RePit thinks it's justified to kill unborn babies

1. Dig thinks people and animals are not equal
2. Dig thinks animals are worthless compared to people
3. Dig thinks it's justified to kill animals

1. Nazis think people are not equal
2. Nazis think non-Aryans are worthless compared to Aryans
3. Nazis think it's justified to kill non-Aryans (and gays, Jehovah Ws, etc..)

That's what I mean about the logic being the same. Sorry for the confusion. It does not have anything to do with Nazi's, and that is my whole point. Pro-choicers often get accused for this "Nazi" logic, while pro-lifers (unless you give the same right-to-life to animals) use the same logic.

I don't wish to call you a Nazi, I apologise, perhaps my sense of humour is too warped for you to understand. I know Americans don't like being made fun of, but Aussies are more laid back and generally find it funny to make fun of someone. Next time I will put ::JOKE:: next to it so you know not to take any notice if you choose not to. I am a clown you know, making jokes is what I do.

Point taken. I am sorry again - I am here to listen and not to argue. I do understand what you are saying about the ordering of the inalienable rights, and it makes logical sense. I now understand how that leads to the conclusion that life must be protected.

Thanks Dig, you have been very good so far. You have certainly responded with logically and honestly, and you are a big help. Thank you.

I'm not preparing anything, I have no interest discussing my reasoning at this point in time. It took me at least a week to explain my theory to concernedparent, and I hadn't even finished then. Elements of my theory; while easy enough to understand, can be disturbing and difficult to accept. Not many are willing to listen due to the disturbing nature, you need to have an open mind. I myself went through depression while coming up with my theories, until I discovered new elements to balance the disturbing points. Concernedparent was very patient in listening, kudos to him. I have not fully explained my theory to concernedparent, I still had a few points to tie it all together.

No one else on that particular forum showed any patience for understanding my theory. Truth is I can't be bothered anymore, I have no interest 'converting' prolifers. It's an impossible task unless they have an open mind which I doubt many who hang around forums have. Now I just want to understand them, which I think I now do.

It's not everything must be valued on a combination of investment and potential return. Everything is valued in that manner, and not just investment and return, but a number of other factors. But I don't want to go there at the moment.

mmmm.... big mac ::joke::

reply from: RePit

Does anyone else have any input to this? There seem to be a lot of prolifers here, it seems a very small proportion have responded, and an even smaller proportion respond with any logic. I am surprised that you have not all jumped in as it is such an important question on what I believe the basis of the pro-life stance.

Or do you not think the question forms any basis, maybe you think it irrelavent?

Is it that you ''don't know', but have a feeling in your heart that killing unborns is wrong?

Or do you agree with the posters who have replied, you ascribe to the 'all men created equal', 'life liberty happiness', 'protect human life' philosophy?

edit: grammer

reply from: yoda

You have yet to tender a cogent response to my statement that no one has any moral "superiority" over anyone else, and therefore save in self-defense no one has the moral right to take the life of another.

Can't come up with anything?

reply from: RePit

No, I can't because I don't understand what you want me to respond to. I did not respond to you previous comments because they either make no sense, or they are simply statements/beliefs.

The statement above seems to me to be talking about something different again.

reply from: yoda

You "don't understand"? Did I use too many big words?

Yes, they are statements OF belief..... IOW they are "morality/value statements". That's the only thing about abortion that is in dispute, isn't it? The law is "settled" (for now at least), so what else is there to discuss?

reply from: RePit

Dogs are all homosexuals.

reply from: yoda

I'm sure you're knowledgeable on the subject......

reply from: RePit

You obviously don't and never have understood my position. My whole theory is based on societal values and has nothing to do with personal values.

I ask you to consider the intrinsic value of every individual as it relates to societal values rather than your personal values.

reply from: yoda

Is that because you don't have any, or what?

reply from: RePit

Is that because you don't have any, or what?

Everyone has different personal values. The laws of society cannot be based on each of our personal values. Otherwise, everyone would have thier own law. If societal laws were based on each of our individual personal values, then if my values say it's ok to throw rocks at people - then I am allowed to do so.

But obviously - it is not ok for me to throw rocks at people. Why is it not ok to throw rocks at people? Because of societal values. Because society says so, not because I say so.

Bottom line is it doesn't matter what I think or what I believe. What matters when determining law is not my personal values, but the values of society.

reply from: yoda

Why are you so obsessed with "the law"? Are you not ever slightly aware that laws generally follow moral values in a society?

And the values of a society are not some esoteric floating cloud, they are the collective sum of the individual values of it's members........ so it's illogical to try to separate them from individual values.

Or perhaps you just don't feel comfortable discussing yours? Is that it?

reply from: RePit

Why are you so obsessed with "the law"? Are you not ever slightly aware that laws generally follow moral values in a society?

And the values of a society are not some esoteric floating cloud, they are the collective sum of the individual values of it's members........ so it's illogical to try to separate them from individual values.

Or perhaps you just don't feel comfortable discussing yours? Is that it?

That is the first post I have read of yours that actually makes sense.

reply from: yoda

So you refuse to actually respond to it's content also?

reply from: RePit

I don't want to respond to that, other than say I agree with that.
What you just said forms one of the premises on which my theory is based on.

I have a dilemma. I can respond with the next step/s of my theory, but then I am afraid I will be stuck on this path of explaining my whole theory again. I am not prepared to re-explain everything again at the moment, I don't have enough patience. Maybe I will another time.

Yeah I know - it's a cop-out.

Why am I here then? Like I said before, because I want to know what you prolifers think. I don't think I have any purpose being on this forum anymore, I think I now understand your prolife stance (the life, liberty thing). Until another pro-lifer wants to come up with an alternative, my presence here is done. I am tired of justifying my position, because it is not why I came here.

Maybe I will reincarnate myself under a new undercover login, posing as a prolifer - at least that way I will not be challenged. Ahhh, the cocoon of Internet anonymity....

reply from: yoda

That can better be elicited by simple questions, rather than the arguing and insulting you have done to promote your positions. I suggest you really wanted to affirm those positions, rather than learn anything.

reply from: RePit

That can better be elicited by simple questions, rather than the arguing and insulting you have done to promote your positions. I suggest you really wanted to affirm those positions, rather than learn anything.

Why are you here then? Do you have a purpose on these forums?

reply from: yoda

Yes. To try to awaken the conscience of our society about abortion, the slaughter of the innocent.

reply from: Tam

Good luck. Make the arguments long enough and you'll realize they make more sense than the specious prochoice ones. I should know.

I'm sorry, I never even tried to help you understand the pro-life position. My position is so simple as to be stated in one sentence: I believe it is morally wrong to take a life intentionally. Yes, I am a vegetarian, an environmentalist, and probably all the other things you'll probably ask. I don't presume to represent THE pro-life position, just A pro-life position. I happen to think it's the "most" pro-life position, but to be frank the anti-abortion part of my position was the last bit to fall in line with the others. I am also an anarchist, in that I don't feel I need government to make rules for me and I resent its existence in a rather http://praxeology.net/LS-LB.htmkind of way. However, as long as we are living in a society which HAS laws, I think the first one on the books should be to prohibit the taking of anyone else's life. I oppose all forms of violence, including physical and sexual assault, murder, abortion, clearcutting, animal testing, etc. I oppose the government taking life (war, death penalty, etc) and also the government giving others the power to take life (abortion). I don't know if my sharing this will help you whatsoever in your quest, but I feel remiss that I haven't shared it yet, so there you go.

reply from: RePit

I am not replying to anyone with this post, just adding something (thinking out-loud).

You say life is more important than liberty, and for practical purposes, it is.

I say life is a miserable existance without liberty. Life is much more than just than breathing and a beating heart. Although breathing and a beating heart is necessary for life.

By saying life is more important than quality of living, I suppose that means if I were pregnant; it would be preferable for me to give birth to the child and use the child as my slave and subject the child to abuse (not that I condone that); rather than aborting my pregnancy.

I can think of something that is more important than life from a practical purpose. The Environment. Without the perfect environment, life cannot be sustained. Obviously if we take an unborn from it's cocoon it may not survive. Similarly; if we damage our planet beyond habitability, which is the only place we can live: we too will die.

So is the right to a sustaining environment also an inalienable right?

Of course - abortion most of the time involves the taking away of the sustainable environment of an unborn person.

But what of the bigger picture, if we stuff our planet up, there is no life for any of us. So I guess you would all be moreso concerned about the environment as well as unborns. Is this right?

reply from: RePit

Good luck. Make the arguments long enough and you'll realize they make more sense than the specious prochoice ones. I should know.

Why should you know? Because you were once pro-choice? I do not presume that all persons who take a pro-choice position have an understanding as to why they are pro-choice. Many may take the position for misguided reasons - eg because all thier friends are.

Here we go again. I believe. While you are free to express what you do and do not believe, in the scope of the real world; ultimately it does not matter what you personally believe.

Thank you for your contribution. It's not really what I was after; I am more interested to know why you value life so highly, but thank you anyway.

edit: formatting
edit2: clarity

reply from: Tam

I don't know that I fully understand the exact meaning of your question but in my opinion the whole is more important than any individual part. If something were going to destroy the world, that is more important than something that destroys part of it. Definitely, poisoning everybody by pollution is just as bad as poisoning one person by murder, or -- depending on whether it caused death -- even worse. I support strict penalties for polluters, strict laws against pollution, etc.

For the record, however, I don't think pollution has anything to do with global warming. Global warming is a natural process that we can't stop and shouldn't try to. Pollution is an unnatural plague on the earth that we should and must stop. I am concerned that those who understand that pollution and global warming are not in fact connected often then conclude that pollution is okay, when nothing could be farther from the truth.

reply from: Tam

Good luck. Make the arguments long enough and you'll realize they make more sense than the specious prochoice ones. I should know.

Why should you know? Because you were once pro-choice? I do not presume that all persons who take a pro-choice position have an understanding as to why they are pro-choice. Many may take the position for misguided reasons - eg because all thier friends are.

I was speaking from a position of knowing my present and former positions and the reasons for them. I should know--you don't know me or why I took that position then, and for you to speculate that it was peer pressure is rather insulting.

Here we go again. I believe. While you are free to express what you do and do not believe, in the scope of the real world; ultimately it does not matter what you personally believe.

I thought you were interested, so I told you. I thought you wanted to learn what makes us tick. I told you what I believe.

Thank you for your contribution. It's not really what I was after; I am more interested to know why you value life is valued so highly, but thank you anyway.

edit: formatting

Oh. I don't value life that much. I don't believe death ends our lives, just our physical existences. I use "life" to mean physical existence for the purposes of discussion, but we are more than our bodies and our consciousness does carry forward after death--even if that death takes place at such an early stage that our full consciousness is not yet present in the physical form. Although that statement makes it seem as though most adults are fully conscious, which is sadly far from the case. What I value is our individual right to live in freedom, freedom from being attacked and oppressed by others. To destroy my body is to attack me and destroy my freedom. That is true now and has been true for the entire time I've had a physical existence. That means from the moment I began--the moment in which I was conceived. Because I would NOT support anyone else's "right" to kill me at ANY time of my life, how can I support anyone's right to kill ANYONE at the same stages? Fairness and equality are extremely important to me, so I cannot expect protection for myself that I wouldn't extend to others as well. Does that better answer your question?

reply from: RePit

I don't know that I fully understand the exact meaning of your question but in my opinion the whole is more important than any individual part. If something were going to destroy the world, that is more important than something that destroys part of it. Definitely, poisoning everybody by pollution is just as bad as poisoning one person by murder, or -- depending on whether it caused death -- even worse. I support strict penalties for polluters, strict laws against pollution, etc.

For the record, however, I don't think pollution has anything to do with global warming. Global warming is a natural process that we can't stop and shouldn't try to. Pollution is an unnatural plague on the earth that we should and must stop. I am concerned that those who understand that pollution and global warming are not in fact connected often then conclude that pollution is okay, when nothing could be farther from the truth.

I realise global warming and human influence may not have cause and effect. I know that it is in fact the reduction of the number of pirates that causes global warming.

reply from: yoda

Here's a question for YOU: How would you feel if you suddenly found that you were about to fall off a tall building, and would certainly die, perhaps painfully? Or if a gang of terrorists tied you up and told you that they were about to torture you to death? Would that bother you?

Then put yourself in the baby's place.

reply from: Tam

Ok, I think that your disrespectful response is my cue to stop responding to your supposedly sincere questions. If you don't want to know what people think, DON'T ASK. You ASKED what I thought about the environment, so I TOLD YOU. Feel free to disagree, but to ridicule is certainly uncalled for. I won't dignify your asinine comment by responding to its content as though it were in the same universe with anything I've said.

reply from: yoda

Apparently he spent a lot of money sending his butt to college, Tam.

reply from: RePit

Ok, I think that your disrespectful response is my cue to stop responding to your supposedly sincere questions. If you don't want to know what people think, DON'T ASK. You ASKED what I thought about the environment, so I TOLD YOU. Feel free to disagree, but to ridicule is certainly uncalled for. I won't dignify your asinine comment by responding to its content as though it were in the same universe with anything I've said.

I forgot to add my ::joke:: tags again.

Have you not heard of the pirates/global warming relationship? It's an Internet joke.

Edit: here is a link - http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.php

reply from: RePit

What makes you assume I am a 'he', and what makes you assume I have gone to college?

reply from: Tam

Ok, I think that your disrespectful response is my cue to stop responding to your supposedly sincere questions. If you don't want to know what people think, DON'T ASK. You ASKED what I thought about the environment, so I TOLD YOU. Feel free to disagree, but to ridicule is certainly uncalled for. I won't dignify your asinine comment by responding to its content as though it were in the same universe with anything I've said.

I forgot to add my ::joke:: tags again.

Have you not heard of the pirates/global warming relationship? It's an Internet joke.

Edit: here is a link - http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.php

Oh. Well, geez, don't forget the joke tags next time. I thought you were being a total jerk, when actually you were being genuinely funny. That link is hilarious. Thanks for clearing that up.

reply from: yoda

The "he" was a generic reference, and the college thing is another "joke".... we say that someone making a smark remark spent a lot of money to send their butt to college so they could be a "smart ass".

reply from: tabithamarcotte

I take it you're into Flying Spaghetti Monsterism...? Meh, that was funny for a while, but now it's getting annoying, really (at least for me). All people can talk about is being "touched by his noodly appendage".

Anyways, back to the subject.

reply from: RePit

I take it you're into Flying Spaghetti Monsterism...? Meh, that was funny for a while, but now it's getting annoying, really (at least for me). All people can talk about is being "touched by his noodly appendage".

Anyways, back to the subject.

hee hee! noodly appendage...

yes, back on subject.

I asked twice in this thread so far a question that I don't think anyone has answered yet - it got lost in a barrage of posts.

Anyways, here it is again, slightly reworded and expanded (because I understand it more now) - actually a slightly different question;

Pro-lifers say:
"Humans have requirements for them to be able to express what it means to be human. These requirements are the inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"

Ok - looking at these rights a little more closely. You want to protect life - do you want to protect the other two? If you do, you cannot condone the following unless you have exceptions in your reasoning;

Right to Life: abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment
Right to Liberty: Jail/prison, slavery, war?
Right to Pursuit of Happiness: ??? neighbours playing Marilyn Manson loudly ??? Can anyone help me here i am not sure how this is applied practically?

So are you against people going to jail? If you are not, then that is still logical, because life is more important than liberty, and maybe you don't actually give a stuff about liberty and do not think it is really inalienable. BTW I am assuming inalienable means just that - even if you are naughty you still have the rights - otherwise they are not inalienable.

Next: regarding the rights of animals. If we apply the same logic as we do to humans on a pig:

"Pigs have requirements for them to be able to express what it means to be pigs. These requirements are the inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"

Now I don't know much about pigs, but in any case - life should be one of those rights. A pig needs life to express what it means to be a pig. So lets take away the other two rights from our statement;

"Pigs have a requirement for them to be able to express what it means to be pigs. This requirement is the inalienable rights to life."

Maybe they need mud and vegetables too - but never mind that. They do have the right to life. So why then - is it ok for us to kill pigs for food?

reply from: RePit

I always suspected that's the way it is.

You "see" something in life, something magical? Something mysterious? Based on your emotion? It defies explaination and rationale. Your faith says it's there.

While I respect that, I myself (and I am not alone) don't believe anything that I cannot observe, explain, rationalise or infer. That does not mean it is not there. You cannot show it exists or not - like the existance of God, the existance of intrinsic value of life is infallable because it is based on faith. Therefore - does that mean it should be up to the individual to decide if they want an abortion? I think so. Otherwise it is like making everyone act as though they believe in fairys.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics