What's the point of arguing abortion?

[Pedro de San Patricio]

So I've been pro-life since about twelve. It wasn't a conscious decision. I just learned what it is and rejection was immediate. It was pretty much the same as how learning about the Holocaust made me anti-eugenics, or how learning about the Holodomor made me anti-Stalin. I had no opinion until discovering the issue, then it was a gut reaction. I observe that most people are about the same, at least with this particular subject. It's so wound up into your personal, built-in morality that it's really hard if not almost impossible for two people with significantly different moral systems to see eye to eye on it. It's like a Russian nationalist and a Ukrainian nationalist arguing over Ukraine's right to be independent. Both have an agenda, both are fixed on their respective agenda, and both have strong reasons to place winning over understanding.

Speaking as an open anti-abortion activist, I suspect that that's the reason you pretty much can't change a pro-abortion person's mind once it's set. That's why, even if you do make a good point, the average person on that side will deftly dodge it and continue on as though the point was never made. That's why the goalposts of exactly what's being argued move around so much. Sometimes it's about whether a fetal human is alive or not. Sometimes she's alive but not human. Sometimes the argument becomes about personhood, or brainwave activity, or viability outside the womb. Sometimes none of that matters because property rights. Sometimes the argument changes completely to the most current war, the state of Africa, or the GOP's official stance on welfare. Often it's all of that and more, shifting to what looks like the most promising route of attack or the most expedient defense. This is the best explanation I can come up with to explain why it's common for the same person to shift positions throughout the argument, first conceding that the fetus is alive but not a person, then making an eviction rights argument, then going back and saying she's merely organic matter that will one day be alive but is currently more or less a tumor, then switching back to the first claim all within the same conversation. I have no experience on the other side of the fence, but I imagine that this could be a common issue for the pro-abortion side in dealing with my own as well. We have a much more definite/fixed position, but I'm not going to dispute that the organized movement as a whole isn't exactly known for being a bastion of entirely rational thought.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What you rejected as a child you should learn to understand as an adult, hence the debate.

 

[Asclepias]

So I've been pro-life since about twelve. It wasn't a conscious decision. I just learned what it is and rejection was immediate. It was pretty much the same as how learning about the Holocaust made me anti-eugenics, or how learning about the Holodomor made me anti-Stalin. I had no opinion until discovering the issue, then it was a gut reaction. I observe that most people are about the same, at least with this particular subject. It's so wound up into your personal, built-in morality that it's really hard if not almost impossible for two people with significantly different moral systems to see eye to eye on it. It's like a Russian nationalist and a Ukrainian nationalist arguing over Ukraine's right to be independent. Both have an agenda, both are fixed on their respective agenda, and both have strong reasons to place winning over understanding.

Speaking as an open anti-abortion activist, I suspect that that's the reason you pretty much can't change a pro-abortion person's mind once it's set. That's why, even if you do make a good point, the average person on that side will deftly dodge it and continue on as though the point was never made. That's why the goalposts of exactly what's being argued move around so much. Sometimes it's about whether a fetal human is alive or not. Sometimes she's alive but not human. Sometimes the argument becomes about personhood, or brainwave activity, or viability outside the womb. Sometimes none of that matters because property rights. Sometimes the argument changes completely to the most current war, the state of Africa, or the GOP's official stance on welfare. Often it's all of that and more, shifting to what looks like the most promising route of attack or the most expedient defense. This is the best explanation I can come up with to explain why it's common for the same person to shift positions throughout the argument, first conceding that the fetus is alive but not a person, then making an eviction rights argument, then going back and saying she's merely organic matter that will one day be alive but is currently more or less a tumor, then switching back to the first claim all within the same conversation. I have no experience on the other side of the fence, but I imagine that this could be a common issue for the pro-abortion side in dealing with my own as well. We have a much more definite/fixed position, but I'm not going to dispute that the organized movement as a whole isn't exactly known for being a bastion of entirely rational thought.

I stopped when you said 12. Dont you think you should examine the issue with the intelligence of an adult instead of a pre-teen?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

What you rejected as a child you should learn to understand as an adult, hence the debate.

My central argument is that it's not about learning in either of our cases. It's about your - for the most part unchanging - moral compass. Your brain is wired to process data a certain way. That way can change, but it usually takes something like personal trauma to do so.

 

[koshergrl]

Pro life ppl recognize the futility of arguing the sanctity of life with sociopaths....but we make our arguments to persuade onlookers who may not have chosen life yet.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I stopped when you said 12. Dont you think you should examine the issue with the intelligence of an adult instead of a pre-teen?

You stopped reading what I wrote at the first sentence and assumed you know what the next two paragraphs say?

Pro life ppl recognize the futility of arguing the sanctity of life with sociopaths....but we make our arguments to persuade onlookers who may not have chosen life yet.

Another aspect of my argument is that there's an opposite side of that coin. By and large, you're the sociopath to them. You're the one who wants to kill people in their eyes. You're the one pushing an agenda that murders women and children. Obviously I lean more closely to your view than theirs, but I can admit what their view is. That seems like a helpful and incredibly difficult first step for both sides.

 

[koshergrl]

So I've been pro-life since about twelve. It wasn't a conscious decision. I just learned what it is and rejection was immediate. It was pretty much the same as how learning about the Holocaust made me anti-eugenics, or how learning about the Holodomor made me anti-Stalin. I had no opinion until discovering the issue, then it was a gut reaction. I observe that most people are about the same, at least with this particular subject. It's so wound up into your personal, built-in morality that it's really hard if not almost impossible for two people with significantly different moral systems to see eye to eye on it. It's like a Russian nationalist and a Ukrainian nationalist arguing over Ukraine's right to be independent. Both have an agenda, both are fixed on their respective agenda, and both have strong reasons to place winning over understanding.

Speaking as an open anti-abortion activist, I suspect that that's the reason you pretty much can't change a pro-abortion person's mind once it's set. That's why, even if you do make a good point, the average person on that side will deftly dodge it and continue on as though the point was never made. That's why the goalposts of exactly what's being argued move around so much. Sometimes it's about whether a fetal human is alive or not. Sometimes she's alive but not human. Sometimes the argument becomes about personhood, or brainwave activity, or viability outside the womb. Sometimes none of that matters because property rights. Sometimes the argument changes completely to the most current war, the state of Africa, or the GOP's official stance on welfare. Often it's all of that and more, shifting to what looks like the most promising route of attack or the most expedient defense. This is the best explanation I can come up with to explain why it's common for the same person to shift positions throughout the argument, first conceding that the fetus is alive but not a person, then making an eviction rights argument, then going back and saying she's merely organic matter that will one day be alive but is currently more or less a tumor, then switching back to the first claim all within the same conversation. I have no experience on the other side of the fence, but I imagine that this could be a common issue for the pro-abortion side in dealing with my own as well. We have a much more definite/fixed position, but I'm not going to dispute that the organized movement as a whole isn't exactly known for being a bastion of entirely rational thought.

I stopped when you said 12. Dont you think you should examine the issue with the intelligence of an adult instead of a pre-teen?

You stopped because you don't like to read. It's the hallmark of your stupidity and is apparent in everything you post.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What you rejected as a child you should learn to understand as an adult, hence the debate.

My central argument is that it's not about learning in either of our cases. It's about your - for the most part unchanging - moral compass. Your brain is wired to process data a certain way. That way can change, but it usually takes something like personal trauma to do so.

That can be true for animals, and stupid humans, not rational adults. I think much more than I feel, all actual adults do.

 

[koshergrl]

I stopped when you said 12. Dont you think you should examine the issue with the intelligence of an adult instead of a pre-teen?

You stopped reading what I wrote at the first sentence and assumed you know what the next two paragraphs say?

He's a retard. There's no nice way to put it, even if he deserved courtesy...which he doesn't.

 

[koshergrl]

What you rejected as a child you should learn to understand as an adult, hence the debate.

My central argument is that it's not about learning in either of our cases. It's about your - for the most part unchanging - moral compass. Your brain is wired to process data a certain way. That way can change, but it usually takes something like personal trauma to do so.

That can be true for animals, and stupid humans, not rational adults. I think much more than I feel, all actual adults do.

If they're sociopaths.

 

[Asclepias]

I stopped when you said 12. Dont you think you should examine the issue with the intelligence of an adult instead of a pre-teen?

You stopped reading what I wrote at the first sentence and assumed you know what the next two paragraphs say?

No. I didnt care to read what you said after stating you made the decision at 12 and never thought it was wise to reevaluate. Now that you answered my question with a question how about answering it with an answer?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

That can be true for animals, and stupid humans, not rational adults. I think much more than I feel, all actual adults do.

I'd argue that you probably don't and that humans are by and large not rational. Our "rational" minds simply attempt to justify our pre-rational judgments after the fact.

 

[Asclepias]

So I've been pro-life since about twelve. It wasn't a conscious decision. I just learned what it is and rejection was immediate. It was pretty much the same as how learning about the Holocaust made me anti-eugenics, or how learning about the Holodomor made me anti-Stalin. I had no opinion until discovering the issue, then it was a gut reaction. I observe that most people are about the same, at least with this particular subject. It's so wound up into your personal, built-in morality that it's really hard if not almost impossible for two people with significantly different moral systems to see eye to eye on it. It's like a Russian nationalist and a Ukrainian nationalist arguing over Ukraine's right to be independent. Both have an agenda, both are fixed on their respective agenda, and both have strong reasons to place winning over understanding.

Speaking as an open anti-abortion activist, I suspect that that's the reason you pretty much can't change a pro-abortion person's mind once it's set. That's why, even if you do make a good point, the average person on that side will deftly dodge it and continue on as though the point was never made. That's why the goalposts of exactly what's being argued move around so much. Sometimes it's about whether a fetal human is alive or not. Sometimes she's alive but not human. Sometimes the argument becomes about personhood, or brainwave activity, or viability outside the womb. Sometimes none of that matters because property rights. Sometimes the argument changes completely to the most current war, the state of Africa, or the GOP's official stance on welfare. Often it's all of that and more, shifting to what looks like the most promising route of attack or the most expedient defense. This is the best explanation I can come up with to explain why it's common for the same person to shift positions throughout the argument, first conceding that the fetus is alive but not a person, then making an eviction rights argument, then going back and saying she's merely organic matter that will one day be alive but is currently more or less a tumor, then switching back to the first claim all within the same conversation. I have no experience on the other side of the fence, but I imagine that this could be a common issue for the pro-abortion side in dealing with my own as well. We have a much more definite/fixed position, but I'm not going to dispute that the organized movement as a whole isn't exactly known for being a bastion of entirely rational thought.

I stopped when you said 12. Dont you think you should examine the issue with the intelligence of an adult instead of a pre-teen?

You stopped because you don't like to read. It's the hallmark of your stupidity and is apparent in everything you post.

No. I stopped because I wanted clarification before I went on. Its the hallmark of intelligence to seek clarification before making judgment. Its the hallmark of stupidity to post what you just posted.

 

[koshergrl]

I stopped when you said 12. Dont you think you should examine the issue with the intelligence of an adult instead of a pre-teen?

You stopped reading what I wrote at the first sentence and assumed you know what the next two paragraphs say?

Pro life ppl recognize the futility of arguing the sanctity of life with sociopaths....but we make our arguments to persuade onlookers who may not have chosen life yet.

Another aspect of my argument is that there's an opposite side of that coin. By and large, you're the sociopath to them. You're the one who wants to kill people in their eyes. You're the one pushing an agenda that murders women and children. Obviously I lean more closely to your view than theirs, but I can admit what their view is. That seems like a helpful and incredibly difficult first step for both sides.

ER...I don't push an agenda that murders women and children.

 

[Asclepias]

I stopped when you said 12. Dont you think you should examine the issue with the intelligence of an adult instead of a pre-teen?

You stopped reading what I wrote at the first sentence and assumed you know what the next two paragraphs say?

He's a retard. There's no nice way to put it, even if he deserved courtesy...which he doesn't.

Youre a crack whore and you still havent gotten help.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"What's the point of arguing abortion?"

None.

Rather, efforts should be focused on how to end the practice that comports with the Constitution and its case law.

The conflict isn't over whether or not abortion should continue, as everyone's in agreement that the practice should end; instead, the conflict concerns indeed ending the practice.

 

[koshergrl]

And perception doesn't dictate who is a sociopath. We aren't sociopaths "to" each other. A sociopath is a sociopath. It isn't subjective.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

No. I didnt care to read what you said after stating you made the decision at 12 and never thought it was wise to reevaluate. Now that you answered my question with a question how about answering it with an answer?

You don't care what I say because of the first sentence of my first post. You're not going to read anything I post if you decide you're not going to like it. I'm unsure how further engagement with you in particular will be beneficial here, especially when the time can be devoted to engaging those who do take the brief time to understand what they're trying to oppose.

ER...I don't push an agenda that murders women and children.

I don't believe you do. I'm saying that, when they tell you that you do, that's because they truly believe it. It's not some ploy any more than it is for you to them them that they do.

 

[Asclepias]

Since the sociopath has the root word of society it is indeed subjective.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

"What's the point of arguing abortion?"

None.

Rather, efforts should be focused on how to end the practice that comports with the Constitution and its case law.

The conflict isn't over whether or not abortion should continue, as everyone's in agreement that the practice should end; instead, the conflict concerns indeed ending the practice.

I understand that this is your default, copypasta answer. If you really believe in ending it, and this isn't just the talking point it appears to be, then why don't you help myself and EmilyNghiem do exactly that?

Since the sociopath has the root word of society it is indeed subjective.

I don't the the words sociopath and society are etymologically related. I'll double check this. How does it relate to what we're discussing?