A heated topic through logical examination.

nexusfruit

17
Registered Senior Member
Please put all of your ethical bias aside for one second. Try as hard as you can to see what I'm about to ask through objective eyes.

Why is it called the difference between pro-'LIFE', and pro-choice, when ..by logic...you can't kill something if it was never born.

How can you throw someone out of a room..BEFORE they're even in it yet?
I suppose you could correlate it to being sad because someone never showed up. So the party was cancelled. But really...logic here folks.

please feel free to chew me up and spit me out.
I'm just toying with an idea here.

Before you answer...answer another question---> "What were you doing at 9:00pm of the second day of you life?"
 
Logically, your problem here is with a premiss, more specifically, with an assumption within a premiss. You've decided that 'alive' is synonymous with 'birthed'. Not only is this fallacious on a purely formal level, it is also so on a grammatical level. Some, but not all people equate 'alive' with 'birthed'.
 
Like the founding fathers of the US, who set forth that citizenship was conferred upon birth inside the boarders of the nation, and not at the time of conception.
 
I suppose, with that in mind, one could assume that I was alive before I was concieved. It's just that my life was divided between two separate organisms. So. futher down the line, if two parents passed away before even being considered parents..( before conceiving ) does the loss of birth potential mean the killing of a potential child?
You see, the very thing that bothers me about this subject is that a fetus is most definatly symbiotic.
On a spiritual level---The car is there, but the driver will be late. Or if they destroyed the car, the drivers gonna end up driving another one shortly.
But I suppose that would be more of a question for the religious forum. You know...the whole idea of souls and what not. :confused:
 
The real problem here is euphemisms. Once euphemisms are used, logic doesn't apply anymore, and if you apply it, what you get out won't make sense.

Saying flat out "pro-abortion" or "against abortion" is too offensive to the politically correct ear, too clear and too direct. After all, the word "abortion" still has the quality of a taboo word, and there are many other words that are used in its stead (like "terminating pregnancy" or "planned parenthood" (this phrase can imply everything form using contraceptives, abortion, to how to be a good parent)).


The choice of euphemisms or rephrasings usually reveals the political program of those using said terms:

The term "pro life" is relaying the philosophy that all life is sacred.

The term "pro choice" is relaying the philosophy that it is essential that people decide for themselves, and that there be no societal pressure.


The more interesting problem here is that both philosophies are generally accepted, and that they are not supposed to clash. "People should always be allowed to decide for themselves and not be pressured by anyone, because all life is sacred." This works when it comes to justifying the human rights movement (at least in theory, it works, but not in practice), for example, but it doesn't work when it comes to pursuing justice (Should criminals be punished? Isn't all life sacred?) or abortion.

I think both of the two philosophies are flawed, and as such, all arguments made on the basis of either of them are flawed as well.

It simply is not true that all life is sacred. People do not behave that way. It is a matter of our survival that we do not act on the belief "All life is sacred". If we were, we'd be sacrificing our own lives for it, and thus effectively denying it. The belief "All life is sacred" can not be consistently acted upon.

It is also not true that it is essential that people decide for themselves, and that there be no societal pressure. If people would stick to that, the first thing we'd have is chaos and violence. Also, the issue of how far does free will reach arises.


Both the pro-life and the pro-choice stance are reductionisms. I am sure it is possible to work out a more comprehensive philosophy. I'm not sure how much interest there is for that though ...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top