Pro impoverished life.
People who have the money to travel to another state to get their necessary healthcare, will do so.
Advertisement
by The Blaatschapen » Mon Jan 18, 2021 1:57 pm
by Des-Bal » Mon Jan 18, 2021 2:16 pm
The Black Forrest wrote:
Cool. Now all these people are going to step forward and help raise these unwanted children right? Hello? Hello? Anybody? Hellllooooooo?
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Sundiata » Mon Jan 18, 2021 2:23 pm
Des-Bal wrote:The Black Forrest wrote:
Cool. Now all these people are going to step forward and help raise these unwanted children right? Hello? Hello? Anybody? Hellllooooooo?
I never got this line of argument. If someone believes life begins at conception this is like arguing we should either buy everyone houses or euthanize the homeless.
by Sundiata » Mon Jan 18, 2021 2:33 pm
Kowani wrote:crossposting:
by Cordel One » Mon Jan 18, 2021 2:45 pm
by Fahran » Mon Jan 18, 2021 2:56 pm
Istoreya wrote:Agreed. Nor do I understand how "people who are pro-life should care about children after they are born too" is not a valid argument.
by Istoreya » Mon Jan 18, 2021 2:59 pm
Fahran wrote:Istoreya wrote:Agreed. Nor do I understand how "people who are pro-life should care about children after they are born too" is not a valid argument.
Pro-life people perceive abortion as equivalent to murder. They're arguing that you shouldn't be able to commit murder. That's wholly separate from any positive obligations on their part. Plus a large number of Catholic people, who are pro-life, do support an extensive welfare state and adoptions.
You can take exception to the argument that abortion is equivalent to murder. In fact, that makes a lot more sense as a rebuttal. "You oppose murder but don't want to feed and shelter random people who you wouldn't let others murder? Curious." That just sounds weird.
by Sundiata » Mon Jan 18, 2021 3:02 pm
Fahran wrote:Pro-life people perceive abortion as equivalent to murder. They're arguing that you shouldn't be able to commit murder. That's wholly separate from any positive obligations on their part. Plus a large number of Catholic people, who are pro-life, do support an extensive welfare state and adoptions.
by Fahran » Mon Jan 18, 2021 3:07 pm
Istoreya wrote:No, I don't think it makes any sense at all. It makes literally no sense to me for someone to want to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy she does not wish to carry because "murder" only for those same people to turn their backs on that now-living person without providing them access to proper healthcare, food, etc because of whatever situation the mother has been left in because of the pregnancy she didn't want.
Istoreya wrote:It makes no sense to me for a person to be okay with a baby being born into suffering just so they can get the moral high ground of "no murdering a clump of cells".
by Fahran » Mon Jan 18, 2021 3:08 pm
Sundiata wrote:I appreciate the balanced perspective on this.
by Galloism » Mon Jan 18, 2021 3:10 pm
Istoreya wrote:Fahran wrote:Pro-life people perceive abortion as equivalent to murder. They're arguing that you shouldn't be able to commit murder. That's wholly separate from any positive obligations on their part. Plus a large number of Catholic people, who are pro-life, do support an extensive welfare state and adoptions.
You can take exception to the argument that abortion is equivalent to murder. In fact, that makes a lot more sense as a rebuttal. "You oppose murder but don't want to feed and shelter random people who you wouldn't let others murder? Curious." That just sounds weird.
No, I don't think it makes any sense at all. It makes literally no sense to me for someone to want to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy she does not wish to carry because "murder" only for those same people to turn their backs on that now-living person without providing them access to proper healthcare, food, etc because of whatever situation the mother has been left in because of the pregnancy she didn't want.
It makes no sense to me for a person to be okay with a baby being born into suffering just so they can get the moral high ground of "no murdering a clump of cells".
by Agarntrop » Mon Jan 18, 2021 3:12 pm
by Istoreya » Mon Jan 18, 2021 3:13 pm
Galloism wrote:Istoreya wrote:No, I don't think it makes any sense at all. It makes literally no sense to me for someone to want to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy she does not wish to carry because "murder" only for those same people to turn their backs on that now-living person without providing them access to proper healthcare, food, etc because of whatever situation the mother has been left in because of the pregnancy she didn't want.
It makes no sense to me for a person to be okay with a baby being born into suffering just so they can get the moral high ground of "no murdering a clump of cells".
I mean, I think the prolife position is inherently problematic for other reasons (no born person has the right to another person's body against their will, and women ARE persons), but this is a pretty bad take, given, no woman outside of extremely unusual corner cases is actually required to care for a baby that they birthed after their biological necessity portion is complete.
We just don't force that as a society. We will take such babies into the adoption system without question in every single case where the mother desires it.
(When I do talk about unusual corner cases, the only case I can think of is incarceration, where the mother is incarcerated and the father is not, and the baby is given to the father shortly after birth as a result. Then it's his choice on whether or not they will have any parental duties or not. But this is unusual.)
by Fahran » Mon Jan 18, 2021 3:16 pm
Istoreya wrote:No, the mother isn't required to, but that usually means the child will go to the adoption or foster system. And I would very easily still class the majority of experiences a child will have there as 'suffering'. My point still stands.
by Galloism » Mon Jan 18, 2021 3:19 pm
Istoreya wrote:Galloism wrote:I mean, I think the prolife position is inherently problematic for other reasons (no born person has the right to another person's body against their will, and women ARE persons), but this is a pretty bad take, given, no woman outside of extremely unusual corner cases is actually required to care for a baby that they birthed after their biological necessity portion is complete.
We just don't force that as a society. We will take such babies into the adoption system without question in every single case where the mother desires it.
(When I do talk about unusual corner cases, the only case I can think of is incarceration, where the mother is incarcerated and the father is not, and the baby is given to the father shortly after birth as a result. Then it's his choice on whether or not they will have any parental duties or not. But this is unusual.)
No, the mother isn't required to
, but that usually means the child will go to the adoption or foster system. And I would very easily still class the majority of experiences a child will have there as 'suffering'. My point still stands.
by Galloism » Mon Jan 18, 2021 3:20 pm
Fahran wrote:Istoreya wrote:No, the mother isn't required to, but that usually means the child will go to the adoption or foster system. And I would very easily still class the majority of experiences a child will have there as 'suffering'. My point still stands.
I don't think a utilitarian argument in this instance is very strong either because we have no way of verifying whether a child will suffer. We're guessing and could be completely wrong - which is always going to be a problem for utilitarian arguments. Gallo's argument, namely that fetuses do not have a right to women's bodies, is arguably much stronger. If you want to go even stronger, "fetuses do not possess personhood and thus do not possess human rights" is probably the best you'll get.
by Istoreya » Mon Jan 18, 2021 3:21 pm
Fahran wrote:Istoreya wrote:No, the mother isn't required to, but that usually means the child will go to the adoption or foster system. And I would very easily still class the majority of experiences a child will have there as 'suffering'. My point still stands.
I don't think a utilitarian argument in this instance is very strong either because we have no way of verifying whether a child will suffer. We're guessing and could be completely wrong - which is always going to be a problem for utilitarian arguments. Gallo's argument, namely that fetuses do not have a right to women's bodies, is arguably much stronger. If you want to go even stronger, "fetuses do not possess personhood and thus do not possess human rights" is probably the best you'll get.
by The New California Republic » Mon Jan 18, 2021 3:29 pm
by The Blaatschapen » Mon Jan 18, 2021 3:47 pm
Des-Bal wrote:The Black Forrest wrote:
Cool. Now all these people are going to step forward and help raise these unwanted children right? Hello? Hello? Anybody? Hellllooooooo?
I never got this line of argument. If someone believes life begins at conception this is like arguing we should either buy everyone houses or euthanize the homeless.
by Fahran » Mon Jan 18, 2021 4:22 pm
Istoreya wrote:I agree with those arguments and would normally default to them myself. My point is that the idea that pro-life people would commit support to improvements in the systems if they were truly pro-life and not just pro-control of women's bodies is not an invalid argument. It's not the strongest one, but it's still an argument nonetheless and abortion should be legal for a multitude of reasons. The one I usually go to myself is that there's no difference between safe abortions and legal abortions - legal abortions should be available for the sake of women's health. Illegal abortions simply mean dangerous ones.
by Fahran » Mon Jan 18, 2021 4:24 pm
The Blaatschapen wrote:And exactly why shouldn't we house the homeless?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Barinive, Bobismh, Czechostan, Inner Albania, Locmor, Vassenor, Vendellamoore
Advertisement