yes the bar has moved, you're viewing bar movements as inherently a bad thing or what ruins another person's argument. when in reality taking in new information and making allowances is what adults do in these situations when questioning morality.

the same thing happens in every philosophy 101 class when the professor says "who thinks shooting a baby in the head it moral", then "what if u have a time machine and it's Hitler".

abortion traditional phrases are from an era where in vitro conception wasn't nearly as common as it is today, or at least not as open in the public domain because there was heavy shame surrounding it for couples to grapple with.

about 1% of all conception is through IVF in the USA, well within the range of an exception to a rule.



this is 100% me.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jul 29 2020 11:33am

When all the "exceptions" point to a common thing, just save time by assigning the importance to that common thing. The rule is "life begins at implantation", not "life begins at conception with a bunch of exceptions that all have a common factor of preventing implantation"

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too by keeping "life begins at conception" and "I'm not concerned about the hundreds of 'lifes' that die in the in-vitro process because I made a special moral exception in that case"


I'll specifically tackle the "would you kill baby hitler" example real quick.

That isn't an exception to the killing babies rule. That's a conflict of morals. It's between "preventing deaths" and "killing babies". Killing a baby doesn't become right, it just becomes less wrong than allowing more death and suffering if you didn't.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jul 29 2020 11:43am

1. saying "this should be the rule based on 1% of cases" is silly, that's how we end up with gender neutral everything and entirely non-peanut schools.

2. i dont believe life does begin at conception, i believe it begins much later. i dont need to believe a rule to see a logical exception. we're talking logic here.

If we are talking about logic we aren't talking about general rules. We're talking about specifically defined implications. Things in the logic zone get less leeway to make exceptions, not more.

99% of the time it should be handled like this and 1% of the time this is ok is a perfectly logical statement. it's not a "general rule" in the true sense, 99% is about as good as u can get for rules in logic. i just used general colloquially to represent non-absolute.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jul 29 2020 11:49am

They aren't lives though because the centrality of what many pro life people believe in is viability without outside stimuli.

A doctor going in the mother and snipping the fetus so it withers and dies is outside negative stimuli which ends that life. A doctor leaving the fertilized egg in the petri dish will die without stimuli. A bunch of the latter dying were never life because on their own even without neg stimuli would have never developed into life.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jul 29 2020 11:53am

Glad we agree then

When two positions are logically equivalent, you can just take the one with the least assumptions. (occam's razor)

When all of the exceptions point to implantation, or as void said, viability, then you can stop saying "life begins at conception" and instead say "life begins at a viable fetus".

But that's a far cry from "pro-life" and is instead "pro-birth". Now add in the other things, like what Handcuffs pointed out about female condoms being class 2 medical devices, the right's consistent barriers to female-oriented birth control, and other things and the movement becomes less about some sanctity of protecting life and more about controlling women as the vehicles of reproduction.

Life doesn't begin until first breath according to the Bible, so these anti-aboritonists are all anti-Christian.

Its always been about contol. Men control culture, women are closer to nature, culture is superior to nature.

Witch hunting happened when women got too much political power in the middle ages. At least forced childbearing is not murder. We've come a long way.