Pro-life: Ignorance or Inhuman

For this section I'll deconstruct Pro's round 3 argument. “I must say I'm not sure how to respond to an argument who's main point is to accuse me of feeling cognitive dissonance . .. " I never accused Pro of feeling cognitive dissonance or lying or flip flopping. Indeed throughout this entire debate in the interest of civility I've always assigned my opponent the most benign of the possible motives, that he didn't realize the full implications of his assertions, and thus not be suffering from cognitive dissonance. I am still confused on how my opponent, assuming he is being genuine, can consistently interpret my arguments as the exact opposite of what they are. The cognitive dissonance was directed towards pro-lifers, examining their inconsistency on a scientific level. “ I may be mistaken, but in order to suggest that the two statements compared in my opponent's response in Round 2 are "diametrically opposed," my opponent would need to cherry pick the quotation (take the quote out of context) from Round 2 to support/make his case. ” You are mistaken. They ethical and legal positions of being pro-life are logically inseparable. I go further into this below. “ No one would argue that considering a fetus to be a fully fledged person is inhuman unless in defining a fetus as such caused another person to suffer needlessly. That IS what is on debate every time people try to define the unborn (from embryo to fetus) as fully fledged people (2). ” And what exactly is it to suffer needlessly? Stopping the killing of an innocent person is considered the need. To use that as an argument as to why to a fetus isn't a person is totally circular. Pro is simply repeating his circular logic again and again in place of an actual argument. This commits the fallacy of Argument ad Nauseum(argument by repetition)(1) . Furthermore your source doesn't back up your claim. It is an article about concerns that a law in Utah is too vague and that vagueness could lead to prosecutions of pregnant women who didn't know they were breaking the law. It did not mention making children in the womb full-fledged people nor present evidence for your claims. It only briefly reported on some people having concerns that were vaguely similar to yours. “ I would go so far as to say that suggesting that there would be no negative ramifications in defining the unborn as fully fledged people would certainly be ignorant. ” Who is arguing that? Not me nor any Pro-lifer I've ever heard of. Indeed there are negative ramifications, increased poverty, stress for the mother, etc. , but the pro-life argument is that these don't justify the killing of a person nor the denial of personhood. This is a straw man thus committing a logical fallacy (2). Personhood isn't determined by the consequences negative or positive you cause to others but by what you are. Pro's point is exactly what I preemptively argued against in round 2 using the pro-slavery analogy. The debate is to whether children in the womb are people based on what they are. Some believe because they're human beings they should be considered people, others believe that that certain groups of human beings can be killed because of a temporary lack of conscience or, in the case of newborns, sentience (see above sources). But this debate isn't about the personhood of children in the womb, if my opponent would like to have such a debate I'd welcome it wholeheartedly. It's about whether someone who defines children in the womb as people or is unsure whether they are people or not (and thus believes abortion should be illegal) is inherently ignorant or inhuman. That's it; despite Pro's attempt as confusing the issue that is the issue. Pro is claiming that anyone who disagrees with his dogma, or even questions it, is either ignorant or evil. Thinking children in the womb are people or not being sure if they people or not and thinking current methods of abortion should be illegal are inseparable ideologies. “ Defining the “unborn” as fully fledged people (thereby providing them the same rights as any other person from the moment of conception) would have enormous consequences. A pregnant woman who trips and falls down a stairs could be legitimately be prosecuted for manslaughter or even negligent homicide should she miscarry do to the event. A couple practicing safe sex and had a condom break would be unable to get the Plan-B pill being that it would technically be a murder weapon. ” How many mothers who lose their babies in a tragic accident are prosecuted? How many mothers who roll over in their sleep and suffocate their babies go to jail? When abortion was illegal how many women were prosecuted for tripping and having a miscarriage? This is fear-mongering and quite frankly makes me disappointed that my opponent has sunk to using such tactics. Also the Plan-B pill IS NOT the abortion pill. It doesn't kill any embryos and won't be a “murder weapon” (3). “ Being that abortion is a life or death situation no matter what the circumstances that have culminated in the choice to kill an undeveloped human, the claim made here by Con cuts both ways does it not? ” Nope, just one way. As I've pointed out many times before, Pro-lifers don't register the death of fetuses/embryos as the death of people on an emotional level. “ The preface makes it very clear that (in the context of this debate) a pro-life position is about implementing a policy in which abortion would be illegal. The two situations in the opening argument were pointed out to show the inconsistency of not recognizing an embryo or a fetus as a fully fledged person in those situations while holding a position that would force the recognition of an embryo or a fetus as a fully fledged person which (if actually implemented) would force another person to make different choices from the ones they would make or face prosecution. ” I agreed that they showed inconsistency among pro-lifers, but inconsistency does not equate to ignorance nor inhumanity (see above sources). I made this clear with my analogy to inconsistent abolitionists. I explained the inconsistency by prejudice amongst pro-lifers and explained why this didn't make them ignorant or inhuman nor did it make their ideology ignorant or inhumane. What Pro is arguing is that Pro-lifers demanding their views be made into law are inhuman or ignorant. Apparently Pro wants pro-lifers who think abortion is murder to respect the different choices of others. One of those “I think abortion is wrong but it should be legal” people. The problem with this is that is doesn't make any sense. If you think something is murder its inhuman not to demand that it be made illegal. Conclusion: Pro has failed to meet his burden of evidence. He hasn't proved why inconsistency among some pro-lifers amounts to all of them being ignorant or inhuman nor has he proven why the ideology is automatically ignorant or inhuman. The center of his argument is holding a Pro-life position, knowing the negative consequences, demonstrates an intent to cause society harm. Pro ignores basic compassion for other human beings and uses current societal prejudices to justify current societal prejudice. This logic is circular in nature and I deconstructed it with the slavery analogies Pro never addressed. As one may have guessed, I'm pro-life, but one doesn't have to be pro-life to take a stand against automatically pigeon holing one side as ignorant and/or evil. Good people can disagree. Rational debate about personhood and the nature of the unborn is the way to settle this issue not dogmatic ultimatums that demonize those that disagree with you. Sources: (1) . http://www.bgu.ac.il... (2) . http://www.unc.edu... (3) . http://www.plannedparenthood.org...