@tristanever1201@NathanNobis@joshwparks@secularprolife 1/ There are two possibilities:
A. PC thinks the unborn, at least at some stage, is not yet alive. In that case PC doesn't get it in the sense of doesn't know the science.
B. PC thinks the unborn is alive, scientifically, but thinks it is not yet human in some philosophical
@stellajaneroyce@secularprolife 2/ of infants. But if 10% of the population of infants spared from abortion die, that means 90% will live who would have been intentionally and violently killed. MEANINGFUL statistics would reflect the outcomes of both pre-natal children and infant children,
@PiaraisMac@secularprolife 2/ they are against abortion. So there's no need to look for bizarre and fanciful explanations such as "controlling women's bodies is the number 1 reason pro-lifers oppose abortion."
@PiaraisMac@secularprolife 1/ This is the logic: If they are against IVF because it ends too many human lives, then it's natural they will be against abortion because it ends too many human lives. Since it's natural they will be against abortion because it ends too many human lives, that fully explains why
@GLeanne38083@secularprolife "even the red state of WV protected IVF."
The laws of WV were not made by people whom Monica (I'd guess) would consider real pro-lifers. They were made by R politicians, all of whom in WV may be nominally pro-life, but who will depart from pro-life ideals in order to win votes.
@PiaraisMac@secularprolife 5/ do you mean that pro-lifers DON'T actually oppose abortion of IVF fetuses? And by "'pro-lifers' are generally against IVF," do you mean that since they are against creating fetuses through IVF, they will not oppose aborting fetuses created in that way?
@PiaraisMac@secularprolife 4/ makes a difference to their stance on abortion?"
So now you're arguing that it would not be inconsistent, would not be a shocker—that it WOULD BE expected—that the method of conception would make a difference to their stance—correct?
And by "that's not much of an argument,"
@PiaraisMac@secularprolife ?? What is your reasoning in your first sentence? That since pro-lifers oppose IVF, it is automatic (and therefore doesn't indicate any particular protectiveness) that they will oppose abortion of a child conceived through IVF?
An analysis of Pete Buttigieg's 2020 response to Dems for Life regarding his opinion on abortion policy... and the hidden premises behind it:
https://t.co/hOHG1p7Z8W
@Truthteste96195@secularprolife "You can make that argument against any legitimate health care practice."
You can make a very weak version of that argument against any legitimate healthcare practice.
@secularprolife@EqualRightsInst 3/ Morality of Transcendent Experience". I invite everyone to look at it (along with the other offerings on that list!).
To get there faster, here is the direct link: https://t.co/d7Eedoar9V
@secularprolife@EqualRightsInst 2/ list including that and others that I will link to."
See in the video's Description the link – under the heading "Secular Pro Life’s blog of sources about moral realism from non-theistic perspectives" – to that list. Monica has kindly included in that list my "The Objective
"Love says that it is good that you exist, and insofar as I am able I will contribute to your happiness, your existence, your flourishing."
–Jason Lepojärvi