Where's the Pro-Life thread?

[ousdahl]

I mean, isn’t it generally kinda peculiar that the pro-lifers have marched in lock step with the pro-gunners, the war hawks, the lobsters, and the moneyed types who seem to only care about their own wealth, among others?

At the very least, that’s quite the coalition.

[PhDhawk]

But I’m not trying to just make up insane hyperbole. It’s a bummer if you only perceive me as such.

Perhaps it’s not as simple as “maintaining a class of cheap labor”

But I’m still curious about some correlation or relationship between pro-life interests and economic interests.

But you are.

[TDub]

I bet if you drop a tab, pour out bong water on a white rock and pay particular attention to the aplatter pattern and evaporation rate the answers will manifest

[TDub]

Yeah, that’s insane.

So why say it?

I was hoping to generate some genuine dialogue about the validity of the scenario with a focus on the extreme classism that would be created by an elite clans who would be privy to unlimited knowledge, power and wealth that only can be garnered through the eons of immortality.

[Deleted User 89]

But I’m not trying to just make up insane hyperbole. It’s a bummer if you only perceive me as such.

Perhaps it’s not as simple as “maintaining a class of cheap labor”

But I’m still curious about some correlation or relationship between pro-life interests and economic interests.

if the cheap labor were actually a thing, then why are so many of those same people also anti-immigration?

[Overlander]

But I’m not trying to just make up insane hyperbole. It’s a bummer if you only perceive me as such.

Perhaps it’s not as simple as “maintaining a class of cheap labor”

But I’m still curious about some correlation or relationship between pro-life interests and economic interests.

if the cheap labor were actually a thing, then why are so many of those same people also anti-immigration?

Duh....brown people...

[ousdahl]

But I’m not trying to just make up insane hyperbole. It’s a bummer if you only perceive me as such.

Perhaps it’s not as simple as “maintaining a class of cheap labor”

But I’m still curious about some correlation or relationship between pro-life interests and economic interests.

But you are.

so how is it hyperbolic just to be curious about a correlation?

[TDub]

Pro life stance correlating with supply of future cheap labor is the definition of hyperbole.

[ousdahl]

hy·per·bo·le
/hīˈpərbəlē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally

I’m trying to be taken literally, and not trying to exaggerate.

Isn’t trying to correlate everything with economics, much of what economists do?

[ousdahl]

I’d mention that time economists made a correlation with higher abortion rates leading to a drop in crime, and even wrote a whole book about it, but that’s prob just another topic you guys would dismiss as more hyperbole?

[PhDhawk]

Qusdahl.

For the vast majority of people who are pro-life/anti-abortion, it's very simple. They believe life begins at the moment of fertilization and from that moment on, it's a human being, whether it's a 24 week old fetus, a 24 month old baby, or a 24 year old adult, there's no difference, they are all humans. Ending the life of a fetus, is therefore akin to murder. So they're opposed to it.

When you come to the conclusion that abortion is murder, then nothing really trumps it. Economic issues, genetic issues, timing, etc. are not good reasons, just like they aren't good reasons to end a born human's life.

I think it's actually the simplicity and sincerity of that stance that has you grasping at other explanations. It's much easier to poke a hole in an anti-abortion argument on the grounds of controlling women, or financial reasons than it is to try to argue around ending a human life. You WANT the reason people are pro-life to be something else, because you WANT it to be easier to argue against.

Of course there are politicians who say they're pro-life when they aren't, of course there are nutjobs who are pro-life for weird reasons, but that's a small minority. There are probably others who say they're pro-life cause they don't want to piss off their spouse or look bad at church...but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about people who are ACTUALLY pro-life, and that's the reason, they think a fetus is a human with a soul and all the same rights as any other human...maybe moreso, because they can't defend themselves.

This is not my argument, this is what I think MOST pro-lifers think. If you have a problem with that stance you should take it up with them. Misrepresenting their stance on a message board about college sports is probably not the right platform for the answers you claim to be searching for.

[Deleted User 89]

i think you paint a more consistent picture of pro-lifers than is reality, phd

i’ll see if i can find any actual data, but it sure seems that the “sanctity” of life becomes muddied water after birth

[ousdahl]

Thanks for the sincere response.

And yeah, the definition and explanation and mission statement gets more confusing is trying to explain how “pro-life” applies to humans beyond the fetal stage.

[ousdahl]

How’s this for hyperbole:

If anyone really wanted to sincerely be “pro-life,” they should also be in favor of raising the minimum wage, providing universal healthcare, and ushering the green new deal, among other initiatives.

(…except, spoiler alert! that’s not hyperbole)

[PhDhawk]

i think you paint a more consistent picture of pro-lifers than us reality, phd

i’ll see if i can find any actual data, but it sure seems that the “sanctity” of life becomes muddied water after birth

Again, not my stance, but what I think is largely theirs would be (depending on your specific point, pick the one that applies):

1. There's a difference between prolonging life and ending it. You don't need to choose to do every medical treatment to extend life to max, but you can't choose to end it prematurely, and that's an important distinction.

2. That an adult human is different than a fetus in the sense it can defend itself and has some amount of autonomy over itself. A fetus, though a human being, can not defend/care for itself.

3. Ending another individual's life is permissible for things like self-defense, or going to war, because you're ultimate goal is to protect innocent people's lives. The whole, you want to kill hitler so you can save 5 million other people kind of thought process.

I am not sure if those apply to your thought process, but in terms of the hypocrisy argument, let's make it about something specific, like Covid19. I'm pretty sure they'd look at your stance as being the hypocritical one. They'd say, "why are you protecting the sick and elderly when they can take steps to protect themselves but then you do nothing about the murder of an unborn child who has not way to protect himself."

[Deleted User 89]

i think you paint a more consistent picture of pro-lifers than us reality, phd

i’ll see if i can find any actual data, but it sure seems that the “sanctity” of life becomes muddied water after birth

Again, not my stance, but what I think is largely theirs would be (depending on your specific point, pick the one that applies):

1. There's a difference between prolonging life and ending it. You don't need to choose to do every medical treatment to extend life to max, but you can't choose to end it prematurely, and that's an important distinction.

2. That an adult human is different than a fetus in the sense it can defend itself and has some amount of autonomy over itself. A fetus, though a human being, can not defend/care for itself.

3. Ending another individual's life is permissible for things like self-defense, or going to war, because you're ultimate goal is to protect innocent people's lives. The whole, you want to kill hitler so you can save 5 million other people kind of thought process.

I am not sure if those apply to your thought process, but in terms of the hypocrisy argument, let's make it about something specific, like Covid19. I'm pretty sure they'd look at your stance as being the hypocritical one. They'd say, "why are you protecting the sick and elderly when they can take steps to protect themselves but then you do nothing about the murder of an unborn child who has not way to protect himself."

i’d throw it right back at them...with examples of rape, incest or in utero developmental problems

i’d also point out that they’d do much more good for those in need if they’d direct half of their pro-life energy on fighting childhood hunger

[Deleted User 89]

i’ll also add, that i’m nearly 100% against late-term abortions

[TDub]

hy·per·bo·le
/hīˈpərbəlē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally

I’m trying to be taken literally, and not trying to exaggerate.

Isn’t trying to correlate everything with economics, much of what economists do?

You being expected to be taken literally when proposing that pro lifers are pro life to ensure a future cheap labor pool is utterly and fantastically ridiculous. It is why the Qusdahl moniker is apt, literally.

[TDub]

You realize that a lot of pro lifers are, themselves, part of the cheap labor pool?

[twocoach]

i’ll also add, that i’m nearly 100% against late-term abortions

Only about 1% of the total number of abortions happen at or after 21 weeks (of the typically 39-40 weeks).

https://www.guttmacher.org/evidence-you ... r-abortion