| | I was over on Revelife the other day, reading people's comments about abortion, and I noticed one lady's comment had zero logic in it. So I replied to it. Then she replied back. And then I replied back. And she and another pro-abortionist replied back. The main case being argued between us was whether or not being pro-choice necessarily means you are pro-abortion. Anyway, here, let's start from the beginning:
Pro-Abortion Lady #1: "I doubt anyone is pro-abortion. Abortion is an option, the same way chemotherapy is."
Me: "Chemotherapy is an option (as it should be), as is legalized murder (as it should NOT be). To say that you are pro- anything but you don't necessarily support that thing--that is hypocrisy. If you are pro-choice, you are for allowing women the choice to execute a 'living human' (as medical textbooks define fetuses) that has a right to life, according to the Constitution. If you are an advocate of people making the CHOICE to abort babies, then you are an advocate of people ABORTING babies; and if you are an advocate of people aborting babies, you are an advocate of abortion. That means pro-abortion. If you are FOR legal abortions, you are PRO-abortion. Saying you are pro-choice just makes you sound selfish.' [And then I gave her this quote:] "To promote choice for its own sake is more akin to self-indulgence than self-determination. It is the philosophy of a pre-schooler in a candy shop." - Brian Pollard, M.D. (Not that he's famous, but I gotta give credit where it's due; he's got it dead-on.)
Pro-Abortion Lady #1: "If you are for eating Big Macs, then you are for animal cruelty. See how little sense that makes?"
Me: If you are FOR eating Big Macs, then you are PRO-eating Big Macs. That's the correct analogy. If you are FOR abortions, then you are PRO-abortion. If you are FOR eating Big Macs, then you are PRO-eating Big Macs. Your analogy was way off. [My explanation for why it is way off comes later; just keep reading.]
And she hasn't responded yet, but give her time. Then Pro-Abortion Lady #2 came in and gave me a different but equally illogical analogy to someone else.
Pro-Abortion Lady #2: "I'm going to assume that if you think people should be allowed to own guns, you're pro-murder."
Me: "Nope. Pro-self-defense. If I were pro-murderers-owning-guns, yes, I'd be pro-murder."
Pro-Abortionist #2: "A life is a life. And there's no way to dictate the choices of an individual. Last I checked, psych evaluations were not a part of receiving a gun license."
Me: "You are 100% correct. And science and medical textbooks define a fetus as an early stage of human life. And as you said, a life is a life. A fetus meets all the legal and medical requirements in order for something to be considered 'alive,' and it also meets all the biological requirements in order for it to be considered human. The Constitution says every human (a fetus is a human; it's not a cat) has the 'right to life.' Abortion directly takes away that human's right to life. The point I was trying to make was this: [Abortion Lady #1] took my statement, 'Being FOR abortion means you are PRO abortion,' and compared that statement to, 'Being FOR gun ownership means you are FOR murder.' And I corrected her. That analogy is way off, logically. She also said this: 'If you are for eating Big Macs, then you are for animal cruelty.' Again, the logic is off. If you are FOR eating Big Macs, you are PRO eating Big Macs. It's that simple. And if you are FOR people aborting their babies, then you are PRO abortion. Again, it's that simple. She [Pro-Abortion Lady #1] doesn't know how to use analogies correctly."
She hasn't responded to this one, but, like the other lady, we must give her time. But I did notice that Pro-Abortion Lady #2 wrote something to someone else:
Pro-Abortion Lady #2: "Prove that a fetus physically dependent on another being should have rights equal to that of the being it is dependent upon. And note that I said physically dependent, not socially.
I joined in.
Me: "You are aware that even a one-week-old newborn is PHYSICALLY dependent on his mother, right? Isn't that a known thing? If physical dependency is the only reason to be for abortion, then that means you have no problem killing a 6-month-old or a 2-day-old or a 3-week-old."
Pro-Abortion Lady #2: "Again, there's a difference between physical and social independence. I do not believe that a being which is solely dependent upon one other being---and has no other option of dependency---should have rights equal to that being."
Are you ready for this one, people? Are you ready?
Me: "Let's say there are two conjoined twins, Bob and Carl. They are 22 years old. They COULD have been safely separated at birth, but the parents thought for some reason to just let them stay conjoined--maybe saying it's God's or nature's will or something. Regardless, the babies stay conjoined, alright? The twins have lived a healthy life up till now, but now they decide they both want to have their own families and get married, okay? So they decide to get surgically separated. One problem: because of puberty years ago, their bodies have grown/changed in such a way that Carl is now physically dependent on Bob for his own survival; if they get separated, Carl will die. Bob still wants to live a separate life from Carl, though. Your opinion, in your own words, is that any being who is solely dependent on another in order to live does not deserve equal rights as the being he is dependent on. So, according to your view, Bob has the right to end the life of Carl, who depends on Bob to live?"
Oh my word, I can't wait for her response.
[EDIT, April 21, 2009]
Okay, so Pro-Abortion Lady #2 responded! You ready for it? Here it is:
Pro-Abortion Lady #2: "Well, that would be the million dollar question: Does the physical dependency go both ways? Most conjoined twins have this issue...one is physically capable of living as a separate being, while the other is not. Parents usually have to choose. But to answer your question: Yes. If Bob is the sole physical supporter of Carl, and such a dependent relationship cannot be transplanted to another individual, or Carl is incapable of existing on his own, I think Bob has every right to decide that he no longer wants to continue what is, by scientific definition, a parasitic relationship. [And then she asked me this:] Would you say Bob should be forced by law to continue being a conjoined twin for the rest of his existence?"
Me: "And so you think Bob does have the right to kill Carl, his full-grown adult conjoined brother? You do realize that that is murder, right? And that it's illegal? The only difference between that and abortion is that baby's are defenseless. Let's be clear: in a complete sentence, do you think Bob has the right to kill Carl? Yes, Bob has the right to kill Carl, or no, Bob does not have the right to kill Carl. I mean, I know what you wrote, but I can't believe anybody but a deranged criminal would have that opinion, so I'm just trying to make sure I have it straight. If you really do think that, does that mean you think Carl is not a living human? Here's a great question: Let's imagine Bob and Carl are YOUR sons. Would you be okay with Bob killing Carl? After all, the fact that Carl is attached to Bob and cannot live otherwise means Carl doesn't have a right to life, according to what you say. Right? So, mother of Bob and Carl: Does Bob have your blessing in killing Carl? [And then, in response to her question, 'Would you say Bob should be forced by law to continue being a conjoined twin for the rest of his existence?' I wrote this:] Yes, I DO think Bob should be forced to not murder his brother Carl. If that means having to continue being conjoined to Carl, so be it. At least a murder was prevented."
I also offered this definition of "pro-choice": Pro-Choice means you think people should be allowed to kill a human being, as science refers to a fetus. It means you think murder should be a choice and that it is no worse a choice than allowing the baby the Constitutional right to life.
Then I asked Pro-Abortion Lady #1 the same question about Bob and Carl, the conjoined twins. Let's wait and see what she says.
|
| | Posted 4/19/2009 8:44 PM - 93 Views - 10 eProps - 17 comments
- recommend
  - recs0
- share
- email
 - sent0
|
), and Paul Rudd (from Role Models) is a wizard of comedy. I can't wait to finally see "I Love You, Man." And Bill Murray (have you seen "What About Bob?" My favorite comedy).
