Pro-Choice Justifications

-

 Pro-Choice Justifications + Arguments


  • Practical Value of Invasiveness
  • Practical Morality (practicalism, tangible based results derivation of goals)
    • valuing all human life the same is a False equivalence
      • If all human lives are truly equal, then anti abortion logic stands even if the mothers' life is at risk. Since all humans are supposably equal, this should be no different than taking a neighbors organs involuntarily to keep yourself alive with a sickness that was not you fault. it's similar to punishing an innocent bystander of a neighbor who didn't do anything wrong and the woman as well who didn't do anything wrong, you are just being affected, which does not give you the right to continue to kill someone else in the process.
        • If this logic were applied to rape victim who was a female scientist that was working on the cure to cancer, we can see how impractical and unrewarding unconditional morality is.
          • That being said, the pro-life justification inevitably justifies rape and no exceptions even in the case of the mothers life as that would be none different than stealing innocent neighbors organs for curing your disease that of which was not your fault nor the neighbors.
    • Going into this situation of practical morality deeper: I can ask the question why do we trust certain people and distrust others? How do we know who to trust? Is trust always blind? Is trust just the blind assumption that you are safe? How is trust developed? How does this prove that morality isn't objective or rather "real" but rather merely a thought process of focusing on goals.
      • The only answer to this is based upon past experience, this proves practical morality based on tangible results and intuition.
      • Why don't you trust a stranger with your social security number, but you trust yourself or your spouse? By answering these questions, you can prove that morality is based on practical results, not some idealism.
      • Technically, all trust is earned, because not everything is a human being, that human being took effort being there.
      • How do you know if I am a human being? I could be an alien in a suit waiting to kill you
        • My point is, without actually testing if we are all human beings all PL categorizations are invaluable. This is because we cannot assign value if someone is a human being or not, that is a useless categorization.
          • Similar to asking for the correlation between birth year and likely hood of majoring in computer science.
      • Moreover, assuming that I am a human being is similar to assuming someone's gender, this is why those that tend to be pro-choice tend to be anti-lgbtq and call those that "look" like a man a Sir and those that "look" like a woman a "mam"
    • There is no such thing as "basic human rights" -> all rights are earned based on features and pragmatism, that is why we give rights to humans as opposed to animals that are not deemed as practically useful. Why do you think we don't kill eagles, but we kill deer and fish? It's because of practical value, and practical value changes based on circumstance and tolerance level.
      • Not everyone deserves respect. For example, just because you are human does not make you an intellectual human being deserving of more respect and it also does not make you a subhuman deserving of less respect. Both types of human beings should be treated as separate types of species instead of recognizing them as human beings as that categorization is inherently useless.
        • This is why I am okay with treating human beings that are rather dumb (looking at you, conservatives), not as human beings but as subhumans, like I would to pedos.
      • This is also why felons and the condemned are stripped away of their rights in due time.
      • grass is innocent, but nothing is stopping me from dismembering into 10 pieces when I use my lawnmower? Why does it matter of it's alive or not? Same logic can be applied to virtually everything in life.
    • Trees are alive with DNA
    • How do you know I am a human being? Is it because of trust or observation of common features?
      • You don't know if I am really a human being or not yourself without actually performing a DNA test. However, we know how impractical that would be to determine who deserves our respect in our everyday life by DNA testing everyone, moreover, how do we know who to test? Is it just based upon looks?
        • That same logic can be used to justify PC justifications or the killing of productive, yet deformed face human beings. How do you know who to be moral towards?
  • A counter to the: "Give the child a chance" logic:
    • [utilizing the way biology works to defeat unconditional morality] Unfertilized eggs example:
      • This would also imply that a woman should have all off the possible babies by fertilizing all of her eggs so that she can give a chance to life for all of those unborn babies existing as eggs.
  • Valuing Mother Over Babies' Life
  • Logically Consistent with Life Applied to Non-Human Life such as bacterial cells
    • Theoretically speaking, if we had to kill bacterial cells to sustain a comfortable standard of life, why is it that our life is prioritized over bacterial lives?
    • Dehumanize, why not de-deer-inize or de-ant-inize or de-grass-inize? Why we are stripping human qualities or grass qualities away from grass?
      • Grass can stand still like human beings do
      • Aliens can act like human beings, why don't we give them human rights?
    • Why don't we give rights to trees? Why are we de-tree-inizing the trees?
    • If I spit on grass, that piece of grass has human DNA, does that mean we should give grass rights?
    • Why can't we assign rights to fecal matter eating bacteria since it is alive too? What difference in size or shape does it make as long as it's alive? Why does the signifnacce change studently when it has huamn dna? Isn't there practical value to it? Proving morality is not based on dogma but practicalsim based on moral intuition, as shown by half of America changing moral values proving that morality is not objective no matter how much you want to believe it.
      • In order to believe in objective morality, one must have a brain first, a human brain that can comprehend morality, not an intellectual one that is too curious for dogma.
    • Just because you are a human being does not make you anything special. For example if I had an alien as a productive workers that does things better than all human beings from calculations to building a house - physically described as a human being like creature that had 3 arms, 5 legs 2 noses, etc - but just didn't have human specific dna in the brain, does that mean this alien does not deserve rights? According to PL logic, it does not, however, according to my practical sense of logic, it does indeed.
      • This proves that nothing gets its value from being intrinsic as all value is derived from what is being enabled by the physical world - the cause - this proves that everything gets it's value from being a purpose in the world 
  • Free Will does not exist
    • The fact that it does not exist and behavior being predicable just not caring enough to perform calculations of each person's prediction provides an even stronger reason as to why we should likely implement sex education
  • Potential argument invariably justifies the idea that all woman should give potential to all life in her uterus because of all the unfertilized eggs there and that getting a vasectomy's would be immoral.
    • This is a good example to show that everything has practical limits, including the so called "unconditional" morality.
  • Value of Suffering
    • Use a theoritical example to over-exaggerated the effects of pregnancy to gain sympathy for the mothers' lifestyle, some may argue that if this was the case women wouldn't get pregnant as often, however I argue based on theory what if we didn't know of this information beforehand and it was a new phenomenon
  • Women can provide more value to society in the net timeframe of 9 months
    • I set 9 months instead of 90 years, as it's a reasonable timeframe to judge if one's productive or not within said timeframe as that is the timeframe for a pregnancy.
    • If pregnancy were to last 10 years, this will effectively limit the amount of societal contribution female scientists can make onto society, not only that, if pregnancy were to make a person's limbs numb at random given a 1 percent chance, this would cross the threshold limits for torture of a valuable person, which is worse than the torture of an invaluable person (the unborn baby)
    • I specifically use 9 months instead of an entire lifetime span considering the baby's potential contributions to society solely based on the fact that if scuh logic were to be applied, you must consider that the women should have all of the possible children she can have given she makes over 100000 eggs in her lifetime, meaning all 100000 of those eggs should be given a "chance."
  • Everything has physical boundaries to logic being applied
  • The unborn baby is no less human with a grass that has my DNA on it
  • Why categorize it as a separate human being?
  • Evolution changes natural processes all of the time, as a matter of fact the desire of wanting an abortion is also natural.
  • if Human DNA is the logic that makes it unjust to kill an unborn baby
    • What if there where such a thing that, even if it looks and functions as a human, it does not have human DNA does it deserve rights?
      • For example, what if we found a new species of aliens that look just like us and perform like us but on a microscopic level, they didn't share our DNA - does this give us the right to kill them at will?
      • What if bunnies looked like humans but didn't have human DNA? It's like retarded people - why does such a microscopic DNA difference matter ? Where to draw the line?
  • According to Pro-Life logic if a "person" didn't have human DNA but "looked like one" and functions liked one they don't deserve rights however if the tiniest of speck has human DNA it's suddenly valuable?
    • This means (proves) that "humans'" rights aren't based in the fact that we are human rather the fact that we are functional. Categorized by function.
    • This also invokes the question: What makes us human? is it others ability to comprehend our presence as humans and trust us? Is it the diploid DNA within our genetical makeup? If so, what makes this dna so special? What makes humans so special? Is it intrinsic? Extrinsic? And if so, how do we know if we are human or not?
      • This questions promote anti-dogma, encouraging practical answers
    • Moreover, I can claim that I am a God and it would be up to you to prove that I am not given that I may or may not have human dna, I may actually be an alien well dressed as a human being, you never know.
    • Another question - given the fact that I cannot practically DNA test every creature that looks like a human being that I come across and determine if they are worthy of respect, how do I know if they are human? Do I blindly trust my eyes telling me if they follow a certain pattern, that they are human beings?
      • These are the types of questions that dogma fails to answer.
      • These are the types of question that can encourage a pro-lifer to become a pro-choicer, naturally the brain will start to adopt more PC policies, if not, it is clear they are emotionally invested into this movement and don't care about being open minded rather default dogmatic. There is no point in arguing with these types of people who are not willing to have their minds changed for the notion of unconditional morality.
      • How do you know which creatures to treat as a human being (what if those seemingly human beings are really aliens in disguise?)
    • This proves that morality is to describe a set of environment that meets conditions for a goal.
    • For all intents and purposes, there is a practical reason why we practice a level of trust as opposed to an extreme level of trust - for example, trusting every stranger we see on the street or trusting no one at all with sense of security in the presence of others by being a hobbit and moving out of society. This proves there is a reason for practical morality. For example: the president will only meet with people with security present, most civilians in the US don't have such an environment to be in.
      • Trust can lead to good relationships, but can also lead to bad ones like trusting a seemingly good person but turns out their are a serial killer. This is where spanking can lead to trust issues.
      • If we truly wanted to be perfectly moral, we would adopt a system that would eliminate the development of serial killers from childhood (formal academic education is the best crime prevention, not religious education) and if there are already serial killers present, we'd have a system that would filter and avoid meeting these people. My point is, there is always a sociological cause to people doing so as such.
      • How do you know if anyone is truly a human being without testing it yourself? Is it called faith? Or trust earned thru conditioning? I don't think it can be both. Human beings have limits, once we reach a limit based on our brain's evolved anatomy, we will give up resisting. This is why some people who are tortured don't even attempt or even think about running away after a certain point due to this type of conditioning only able to be taken given the brain's components. Without the amygdala, one cannot develop fear, weather reasonable fear or not.
  • We don't kill newborns because they are foster care parents willing to directly take care of the child that ONLY physically affect the foster care parent and not the unwilling woman.
    • Similarly to how you can only park on your driveway only because it only affects you as opposed to affecting my driveway.
    • Also because of the lack of invasveness
  • Sanctity of life - why does not apply to non-human entities?
    • Unborn babies are not that special. They are only special if you symbolize their existence as something meaningful, same thing with all human beings. Moreover, unborn babies don't provide more practical value than they are promised to receive.
  • Rights to born people because of potential ability to change into someone better and respect ability to develop into someone better given practical value provided to voluntary mother mother affecting no one else but the voluntary mother
    • Affecting no one else but the voluntary mother: Since the mother decided to have the child and is now born child, that child is now providing practical value to the mother by being alive and that is ok since that child is affecting no one else except the voluntary parties.
    • We still give rights to felons and not pieces of grass even though the felons betrayed us unlike the grass did because of there being practical value found in felon's ability to change for the better.
  • I don't believe in basic human rights, there is a reason why the right to life is gone when your actions threaten an innocent persons' life of value as opposed to another live that does not have value
    • Very similar logic to why we strip the rights of freedom away from felons such as owning a gun and even voting in some jurisdictions.
  • I only respect ppl because of value provided and potential - iv none of those exist no reason for me to.
  • What does the term morality describe? It describes someone's attitude towards a set of standards used to govern interaction
  • Human life isn't that valuable just because it's human, human can take many forms some forms are less valuable than others
    • The question now arises, do the conditions that enable this human being to exist matter much as well?
  • By valuing human life, I can use same logic to justify anything - such as we should value the life of anything with the dna of a [insert animal here - ex. frog]
    • Why is there no rights assigned to a frog? If what makes us human being is our DNA, what if we discovered a frog with human DNA, but does not perform human like functions like critical thinking and similar motor skills - does it deserve "human" rights? This is why I don't believe in intrinsic value or "human" rights.
      • This is what changed my mind. This is the limits of my thinking. If this logic does not change your mind, that implies that you are not open to new information, which is a fact as knowing this piece of information would change any rational persons' mind.
  • By calling me a human being, it can be considered anything from a serial killer to a nice grandma. Calling someone a human being can be considered an insult to a compliment.
  • If all life matters, why can we not value ant's life's in the same manner and assign ants rights?
  • what if everyone did that?
    • unconditionally, what if we didn't allow abortion for any human being under any condition - this is the only consistent pro life logic as allowing abortion in case for the mother's life should be no different than saying taking innocent neighbors organs to supply your own organs when your own organs are failing due to it not being your fault. Basically, even if you are suffering from an ailment for a fault that is not your this does not permit you to take another innocent persons' organs to use it for yourself. Similar to how, even if you were rear ended by a car, this does not give you permission to rear end another car (potentially ending in fatality).
  • If a mole rat were to have the same DNA as a human being, should we grant that mole rat human rights? even though it does not have the same functionalities as us?
    • at what point what "basic" encompass in terms of ""basic human rights?"
  • To those who say "I just don't want you to be able to kill a human being child"
    • Tell them the following:
      • Will you apply the the same criteria/logic if it were another animals' child  - what if it was a kangaroo's child? Should we not be able to kill it, legally speaking?
      • How are you measuring that as a human being child - how do you know it's a human child? How do you know that I am human being, if anything, I could be an alien in a meat suit? How do you know if anyone is not going to kill you the next day?


Sources:

Argument formulation tips (both general and specific to PC argument):

  • Keep asking why
  • Anti-dogma
    • Dogma can be theoretically used to justify anything, literally, including rape
  • Practical reason
  • Tangible Results

Common Pro-Life Logical Fallacies + How to address

  • false equivocation
  • dogma (does not question why enough)
    • if they attempt to claim that human life is more valuable and fail to answer why and giving dogmatic responses hindering asking questions and freethought, that in and of itself proves why PL logic is flawed see: anti dogma point above.
    • The same logic used to justify pro-life beliefs can be used to justify pro-life beliefs for animals of all species that are alive - how impractical would it be to claim pro-life and rights assigned to the ants species?

Keywords:

symbolism, value of human life, value of life, pain in life, feelings are symbolic, devil's advocate, oversimplifying situation, 

Sources:

Comments

Post a Comment

I don't really moderate comments, so do as free as you wish. I intend the comment section to be helpful in some way shape or form though, so please don't abuse this privilege.