Right? If you aren’t interested in a gay marriage it’s incredibly easy to avoid entering into one. I’ve managed to go my entire life without being gay-married. Heck, I’m not gay-married right now! Yet despite what Fox News tells conservatives, there’s no gay mafia threatening or intimidating me for it.
Tbh it was kinda a pain in the ass for me to get gay married. There was paperwork and everything! I had to leave work early to go to a government office. Not doing it really is the easier option
Okay, maybe I’ll get hate for this, and to be clear I fully support a woman’s right to abortion, but to the people who truly believe abortion is wrong this is basically saying “if you think murder is wrong, just don’t kill anyone.”
Almost every person I know who thinks abortion is morally wrong also supports the death penalty and war for almost any reason and police violence. They only seem to care about unborn fetuses that are not ‘alive’ independently from the body they inhabit. And most think that the mother’s life is fine as a fetus’ collateral damage. Therefore I don’t for a minute believe that many of those who profess to morally care about life/murder, really care about either.
I do know Catholics who are anti-abortion, anti-death penalty and anti-euthanasia; they strongly believe God should decide the beginning and end of anyone’s life.
Not saying they are right but they are consistent.
I’m anti-abortion for myself, never had one never thought it was an ok thing. But I don’t think laws should apply at all - the existing woman always matters more than the as yet unborn and I’ve met exactly one person ever who used abortion freely and as her birth control and she was crazy. It’s such an edge case law is not the right answer.
So in short I agree with if you don’t think it’s right don’t do it. Don’t try to control other people who aren’t harming you. You don’t walk in anyone else’s shoes, you don’t know their pain. If your friend is having an abortion when she wants the baby, but can’t figure out how to manage tell her how you can HELP her, don’t judge her.
But the Bible is pro-choice. It says in multiple places that life begins at first breath, and has a ritual to force your wife to miscarry and lose her uterus if she cheated on you.
Yeah, back when I was catholic that first breath bit is how I defended my support for abortion rights. Well that and the whole “look at the consequences of not allowing it” thing
As an ex catholic, those ones are few and far between, and not in the better way. Opposition to capital punishment is something a lot of American Catholics hold as a “yeah the church says we’re supposed to believe it” much like opposition to premarital sex
And the reply to every single one of those people is, “If you think abortion is wrong BECAUSE it is murder, then what are your feelings on the death penalty or war?”
It’s not the gotcha you think it is. Murder is defined as the intentional killing of an innocent person, and the death penalty and war don’t don’t intentionally involve innocent people.
It’d be like saying “oh, you oppose murder? What about self defence???”
Death penalty is usually opposed because the person might be innocent. Just the ‘Don’t Talk to the Police’ clip cites two different cases where policemen talked mentally ill people into incriminating themselves, which people were later exonerated by DNA evidence.
Yeah, but it’s not the reason Catholics and other Christians are supposed to oppose it. It’s unnecessary killing, regardless of guilt. In defensive war it’s one thing to kill, but a person you can stop from killing anyone? You’re supposed to keep them in prison and try to help them change
Murder is not defined as the intentional killing of an innocent person, by either Merriam Webster, Wikipedia, American Heritage Dictionary, or Dictionary.com
Not one definition anywhere has the word “innocent” in it.
It is defined in one place as “The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.” How we define “justification” is important. I would call most war, “recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.”
Other places has it as “unlawful or unjustified killing of a person.”
Is it really “most war,” or is it one half of most wars?
But sure, that’s a fine definition. I think if you don’t include “justified” the definition is clearly incomplete - and I don’t think anyone who thinks about it would disagree, because it would contradict common usage so thoroughly.
So now you get to argue that killing foetuses is justified. Good luck with that, I’m sure the definitional exercise will have convinced whomever you were talking to :/
Because I would like you to be successful in debating this issue, I need to inform you:
That’s not a very good response. It will convince literally no one. It won’t be convincing to the person you’re debating. It won’t be convincing to people who are observing the argument. It changes absolutely nothing.
The only effective replies are the ones that force people to think deeply:
What makes this wrong, specifically?
and then, ask them to explain even more deeply every time they respond. e.g., “killing an innocent person is wrong.”
What makes something innocent? What makes something a person?
If you can get them to at least admit that it’s a gray area, you’ve won.
Most people can be convinced of something. I have a lot of debates, both in person and online, and I’ve gotten somewhat decent at it. I think the most important thing is setting a realistic goal.
Did I convince a group of young earth creationists that the theory of evolution by natural selection is the best explanation for the diversity of life? No I did not. Did I convince some of them that biologists aren’t a part of a satanic conspiracy, and that they’re just trying to come up with good explanations for the stuff they see? Yes, I think so.
Did I convince a “pro-life” friend that abortion should be exclusively the host’s decision? No I did not. Did I make them recognize that drawing the line on when abortion should or should not be allowed is harder than they had assumed, and that IF the government is going to draw that line, they should at least consult some medical experts? Yes, I think so.
On some level it might feel like it’s not enough… But there isn’t anything better, so I’ll take what I can get. Good luck out there.
But being absolutely against murder doesn’t end up with other people being murdered, so it’s a terrible analogy that they are just allowed to get away with. If you stop doctors from “murdering” babies, then mothers die as a result, full stop. They don’t even argue that point, they just don’t care, so arguably, they’re no better than the murderer in their own stupid analogy.
All of this is a religious refusal to admit that biology is a nasty, difficult and ugly business and not the perfect product of their all-loving God, and it’s just plain stupid.
It’s almost like there is a difference between an object that has only one purpose and a show that has many purposes, none of which involve killing people. I’m not saying we should ban guns, but your analogy is stupid.
If you think abortion is wrong, just don’t have one.
Gay marriage enters the chat.
Right? If you aren’t interested in a gay marriage it’s incredibly easy to avoid entering into one. I’ve managed to go my entire life without being gay-married. Heck, I’m not gay-married right now! Yet despite what Fox News tells conservatives, there’s no gay mafia threatening or intimidating me for it.
Tbh it was kinda a pain in the ass for me to get gay married. There was paperwork and everything! I had to leave work early to go to a government office. Not doing it really is the easier option
You have no idea how lucky you are. I was just going to the hardware store the other day and very nearly fell head long into a rogue gay marriage.
Don’t like drugs? Dont use them.
Dont like guns? Dont own any.
One of those things is not like the other.
Your consistency?
Guns are dangerous for other people in a way drugs aren’t.
Okay, maybe I’ll get hate for this, and to be clear I fully support a woman’s right to abortion, but to the people who truly believe abortion is wrong this is basically saying “if you think murder is wrong, just don’t kill anyone.”
Almost every person I know who thinks abortion is morally wrong also supports the death penalty and war for almost any reason and police violence. They only seem to care about unborn fetuses that are not ‘alive’ independently from the body they inhabit. And most think that the mother’s life is fine as a fetus’ collateral damage. Therefore I don’t for a minute believe that many of those who profess to morally care about life/murder, really care about either.
I do know Catholics who are anti-abortion, anti-death penalty and anti-euthanasia; they strongly believe God should decide the beginning and end of anyone’s life.
Not saying they are right but they are consistent.
I’m anti-abortion for myself, never had one never thought it was an ok thing. But I don’t think laws should apply at all - the existing woman always matters more than the as yet unborn and I’ve met exactly one person ever who used abortion freely and as her birth control and she was crazy. It’s such an edge case law is not the right answer.
So in short I agree with if you don’t think it’s right don’t do it. Don’t try to control other people who aren’t harming you. You don’t walk in anyone else’s shoes, you don’t know their pain. If your friend is having an abortion when she wants the baby, but can’t figure out how to manage tell her how you can HELP her, don’t judge her.
But the Bible is pro-choice. It says in multiple places that life begins at first breath, and has a ritual to force your wife to miscarry and lose her uterus if she cheated on you.
Yeah, back when I was catholic that first breath bit is how I defended my support for abortion rights. Well that and the whole “look at the consequences of not allowing it” thing
Wild stuff. The Catholic version has the womb “dropping” ( = lose uterus? )
As an ex catholic, those ones are few and far between, and not in the better way. Opposition to capital punishment is something a lot of American Catholics hold as a “yeah the church says we’re supposed to believe it” much like opposition to premarital sex
deleted by creator
And the reply to every single one of those people is, “If you think abortion is wrong BECAUSE it is murder, then what are your feelings on the death penalty or war?”
It’s not the gotcha you think it is. Murder is defined as the intentional killing of an innocent person, and the death penalty and war don’t don’t intentionally involve innocent people.
It’d be like saying “oh, you oppose murder? What about self defence???”
Death penalty is usually opposed because the person might be innocent. Just the ‘Don’t Talk to the Police’ clip cites two different cases where policemen talked mentally ill people into incriminating themselves, which people were later exonerated by DNA evidence.
Yeah, but it’s not the reason Catholics and other Christians are supposed to oppose it. It’s unnecessary killing, regardless of guilt. In defensive war it’s one thing to kill, but a person you can stop from killing anyone? You’re supposed to keep them in prison and try to help them change
It’s a good reason to oppose the death penalty, but I don’t think it makes it murder at all.
You just said above that it is murder.
But the person has been found guilty so even if they aren’t, it’s not the intentional killing of an innocent person.
Murder is not defined as the intentional killing of an innocent person, by either Merriam Webster, Wikipedia, American Heritage Dictionary, or Dictionary.com
Not one definition anywhere has the word “innocent” in it.
It is defined in one place as “The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.” How we define “justification” is important. I would call most war, “recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.”
Other places has it as “unlawful or unjustified killing of a person.”
Is it really “most war,” or is it one half of most wars?
But sure, that’s a fine definition. I think if you don’t include “justified” the definition is clearly incomplete - and I don’t think anyone who thinks about it would disagree, because it would contradict common usage so thoroughly.
So now you get to argue that killing foetuses is justified. Good luck with that, I’m sure the definitional exercise will have convinced whomever you were talking to :/
I mean, I oppose murder even in self defense but I am pro choice.
Because I would like you to be successful in debating this issue, I need to inform you:
That’s not a very good response. It will convince literally no one. It won’t be convincing to the person you’re debating. It won’t be convincing to people who are observing the argument. It changes absolutely nothing.
The only effective replies are the ones that force people to think deeply:
and then, ask them to explain even more deeply every time they respond. e.g., “killing an innocent person is wrong.”
If you can get them to at least admit that it’s a gray area, you’ve won.
Good luck convincing such people of anything.
Most people can be convinced of something. I have a lot of debates, both in person and online, and I’ve gotten somewhat decent at it. I think the most important thing is setting a realistic goal.
Did I convince a group of young earth creationists that the theory of evolution by natural selection is the best explanation for the diversity of life? No I did not. Did I convince some of them that biologists aren’t a part of a satanic conspiracy, and that they’re just trying to come up with good explanations for the stuff they see? Yes, I think so.
Did I convince a “pro-life” friend that abortion should be exclusively the host’s decision? No I did not. Did I make them recognize that drawing the line on when abortion should or should not be allowed is harder than they had assumed, and that IF the government is going to draw that line, they should at least consult some medical experts? Yes, I think so.
On some level it might feel like it’s not enough… But there isn’t anything better, so I’ll take what I can get. Good luck out there.
You won’t succeed in one go, the goal is to leave them asking questions later and not aggressively rejecting your position
It’s not murder when the men with money do it.
Which is whataboutism - it is a legitimate argument.
But being absolutely against murder doesn’t end up with other people being murdered, so it’s a terrible analogy that they are just allowed to get away with. If you stop doctors from “murdering” babies, then mothers die as a result, full stop. They don’t even argue that point, they just don’t care, so arguably, they’re no better than the murderer in their own stupid analogy.
All of this is a religious refusal to admit that biology is a nasty, difficult and ugly business and not the perfect product of their all-loving God, and it’s just plain stupid.
Murder affects people though.
If you think owning guns is wrong, just don’t buy one.
It’s almost like there is a difference between an object that has only one purpose and a show that has many purposes, none of which involve killing people. I’m not saying we should ban guns, but your analogy is stupid.
Agreed!
I mean, I agree - but this logic breaks down for those who believe that a fetus is alive.
People who believe that are illogical anyway
I mean - that’s fine - but it is what a decent number of people beleive.
I bet they’d argue that the cells are alive, but not bat an eye at removing a tumor.
Or killing an animal or “lesser” humans of their choice (generally anyone non-white).
But I like being bad, daddy.