Pro-life: Ignorance or Inhuman

Thank you for your response. Cognitive Dissonance: I would first like to start off by examining my opponent’s language. My opponent's claim in round 2 is as follows: “ This debate is not about the people who hold a pro-life position but about the position itself being either an inhuman or ignorant position to hold.” But his claim in round 1 is this: “My basic contention is that a person holding a pro-life position (as defined in the preface) is either inhuman - given the logical, philosophical, and real life consequences of holding and/or implementing said position - OR they are simply ignorant of the consequences of holding and/or implementing their position.” As one can see, my opponent is saying two very different things. He makes very clear he is referring to the people holding the pro-life position and that they are either inhuman or ignorant in the first round. In the second round Pro back tracks and claims that he was only making assertions about the ideology itself and not the people that hold it. In the interest of civility I will give my opponent the benefit of the doubt and assume he simply didn't realize the logical consequences his two statements instead of him being intellectually dishonest. Should Pro concede his first point he'll have conceded the debate and I'll applaud his maturity at doing so; should he concede the second point we'll carry on where we left off leaving Pro to prove his entire position in round 3. The two statements are diametrically opposed. If Pro continues to support both statements it will have to fall on the voters to show him his error, as I would have failed. If Pro wishes to continue to continue the debate I'll gladly engage him. I offered a third proposal:...OR due to societal conditioning they are aware of of the logical consequences yet choose not to act on them (This proved Pro's argument as a illogical Bifurcation [1]). This makes the person, not the ideology irrational. Indeed this third possibility essentially disproves Pro's argument. Irrational is neither a synonym for ignorant nor inhuman (2). Indeed what Pro is asserting would dismiss the principle of cognitive dissonance. The uncomfortableness with holding two contradictory positions (3). One must first have the knowledge that they are contradictory and thus aren't ignorant. For his argument to be true the scientific principle of cognitive dissonance would have to be false. "The possibility that a pro-life advocate is emotionally attached to the notion of the unborn having rights the same as anyone reading these statements and is therefore holding their position for irrational reasons.” That is in fact the exact opposite of what I was claiming. I claimed that pro-lifers weren't emotionally attached to the unborn (or at least not as much as born people), because they were irrational and prejudiced. Despite holding a rational position they are likely to implement it in an irrational way during a life and death situation due to their own prejudice. Why so Dissonant ?: Its difficult to understand how my opponent could have so misunderstood my arguments. This is especially so in the context of me framing inconsistent ageist pro-lifers as allegorical to inconsistent racist abolitionists. Did my opponent really think I was claiming abolitionists had an irrational position and an irrational emotional attachment to slaves? I was claiming just the opposite that despite their rational position they held a irrational emotional dis-attachment to slaves. Furthermore, my opponent has yet to prove why choosing to save the cooler is inherently inhuman. Yes, most pro-lifers would save the born girl and most abolitionists would save the white girl, but why is defying social prejudice and sticking to your beliefs of human equality intrinsically evil? Certainly Pro wouldn't choose to save the cooler but if someone did save the cooler, out of genuine compassion for those inside and a strong belief in human equality why is that someone evil? And why is the stance of genuine support basic human equality, even if you think the that stance causes harm on a practical level, inherently evil? Why is this a desire, even if it causes harm, inhuman if it's motive is one of compassion? Indeed it all comes down to one's definition of person. If one considers the unborn people then all of the practical harmful consequences become moot, as none of them justify the slaughter of millions of people. One could argue that since defining the unborn as people would cause these enormous negative consequences (very debatable but for the purposes of this debate we'll assume the pro-choice boogie stories are true) then we shouldn't define the unborn as people and doing so is inhuman. Of course this is nonsensical and ridicules. Someone who was Pro-slavery might argue that defining blacks as people would be inhuman because it would lead to consequences that would harm society (economic troubles, loss of state rights ect.), thus we shouldn't define blacks as people (4). As one can tell this is circular in nature (See above sources). Not to mentions it presupposes the motives of the abolitionist position is to cause harm, rather then one of compassion towards blacks (if less so then towards whites). This is the same for pro-lifers, even if you could conclusively prove that ending legal abortion would cause more harm then good you would then have to prove the motives of the pro-lifers were ignorant or inhuman. Conclusion: Not only hasn't Pro provided proof of either why pro-lifers or the pro-life ideology are/is inhuman/ignorant but I have disproven both claims. Pro has claimed both, but he need only prove why pro-lifers are all evil and/or ignorant. Still a mighty task that has yet to be addressed. Remember Pro has the burden of proof. Many believe that laws shouldn't be defined by the prejudice of the day, but by consistent laws that protects humanity equally under the law, even if the citizens are prejudiced and inconsistent. I oppose the assertion that all those that believe and act on the above statement are ignorant and/or inhuman. Sources: http://www.fallacyfiles.org... http://www.synonym.com... http://www.ithaca.edu... http://www.olemiss.edu... P.S. : I merely stated I found his railings against theological pro-life arguments ironic. If Pro really didn't intend it as a strawman I'll let it slide, but I would remind him many pro-choicers (dare I say most) derive their pro-choice position from the belief that children in the womb aren't human. Unlike religion that belief has been unequivocally and scientifically disproved. Let us attack the arguments that have actually been made. It's really not important to this debate but given that he said it is the determination of personhood that matters, the majority of is pro-choice arguments would be off-point even in a debate directly about the legality of abortion. I eagerly await Pro's final response, this has been fun.