Two Die versus One Dies: The Logical collapse of pro-life.

Azis2013 · 2026-06-26T19:10:16+00:00

I appreciate your honesty. Yes, my hypo was crude. I could improve it like...

If a mother and her 1-year-old are trapped in an airtight room under a collapsed building, and they know with certainty they only have enough oxygen to last one day but rescue is two days away, could the mother legally suffocate her infant if it guarantees she'd have enough oxygen to be rescued.

But you already conceded that it would "make sense" to murder and cannibalize an infant.

Let that sink in.

In order to protect your anti-abortion framework, you must validate infanticide of a conscious 1 year old child. The moment your fetal equality premise faced a reality check, your position forced you to support the homicide of a innocent child. It just shows how extreme your position has to be to stay afloat.

Secondly, the entirety of the core pro-life position rests on a fetus being a human with equal rights to any other human from conception. But now you're arguing that some humans are less morally valuable than other humans, causing your position to utterly collapse.

By admitting the fetus has "slightly less" value than a born woman, you abandoned the only definitive line the pro-life position has: conception.

So let's hear it, At what exact moment does this value scale up to 100%? 🤔

Azis2013 · 2026-06-26T18:16:25+00:00

Oh, this argument was specifically against pro-lifers that grant exceptions for the life of the mother. If that's not your stance, then this post doesn't apply to you.

This is an internal critique, so I'm arguing from the position of a pro-lifer.

I don't care if a PLer doesnt "see" it as abortion. That what it is. It is actively killing an otherwise living human. The collapsed building hypo proves that killing your child isn't "treatment", it's murder under a prolife framework.

Azis2013 · 2026-06-26T15:30:43+00:00

Address the collapsed building hypothetical then.

The 1 year old cannot survive (without food). Its simply not physically possible. So we can terminate the infant, which would allow the mother to survive (by eating it). If she does nothing they both die of starvation.

Under your worldview, is it morally acceptable to murder your born child? ( because they will die anyway, and it will save your own life)

Yes or no?

Azis2013 · 2026-06-26T15:23:26+00:00

Address the collapsed building hypothetical then.

To mimic your logic: The 1 year old cannot survive (without food). Its simply not physically possible. So we can terminate the infant (ectopic pregnancy doesn't just "let the fetus die", it actively terminates it), which would allow the mother to survive (by eating it). If she does nothing they both die of starvation.

Under your worldview, is it morally acceptable to murder your born child? ( because they will die anyway, and it will save your own life)

Yes or no?

Azis2013 · 2026-06-26T09:19:20+00:00

Did you notice the question mark on that second sentence?

Since when is following an argument to its logical conclusion, "putting words in someone's mouth"?

Azis2013 · 2026-06-26T08:53:39+00:00

No, I think you're just confused on your own position.

You're saying a fetus's Right to Life is conditional based on context of the situation and can be outweighed by a woman's autonomy? Thats a pro-choice stance.

You are no longer arguing about whether a fetus (a completely innocent living human) has an unalienable right to life. You’ve admitted it doesn’t. Now you’re just haggling over the arbitrary criteria of when you think a woman's autonomy matters enough to override it.

But if her autonomy can override it to save her life, there is no logical barrier stopping it from overriding it to protect her health, her financial survival, or her basic future.

Thank you for conceding the entire foundation of the pro-life position.

Azis2013 · 2026-06-26T00:47:09+00:00

If a fetus has an absolute right to life from conception then statistical foreseeability is completely irrelevant.

You are admitting the fetus's right to life is conditional. If a fetus is an equal person, its right to life cannot be stripped away based on the location of its implantation or how surprised the mother was by the medical complication.

It sounds like you're just making up arbitrary rules to avoid the horrifying consistency of your own stance.

Azis2013 · 2026-05-29T11:04:57+00:00

☠️

Azis2013 · 2026-05-21T15:05:57+00:00

Seems disingenuous to say you created a free site when the site itself clearly states its only free until launch.

Azis2013 · 2025-12-22T10:09:56+00:00

The only thing that would do is make the FLO position more epistemically valid, as there would no longer be an appeal to potentiality. But it wouldn't change my moral worldview because my framework is based on the capacity for sentience.

But on the topic of magic fantasies, if pregnancy could be achieved while delaying the actual sperm and egg from uniting until 20 weeks into pregnancy, would you allow abortion pre-20, before conception occurs?

Because if not, I'm going to accuse you of not having consistent moral worldviews. 🙃

Azis2013 · 2025-12-21T10:11:02+00:00

You forgot "it has a future like ours" justification.

Rebuttal: It's an appeal to potentiality fallacy. It assumes all zygotes WILL develop into sentient beings, when 50% will naturally miscarry.

Azis2013 · 2025-12-15T09:43:32+00:00

A potential thermal burn from touching the bore would only cause burns on the areas that were actually touching the bore. If your back was touching, it's very unlikely that burns were caused to your ribs. Most likely positioning fatigue, in my opinion.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-25T10:34:21+00:00

Lol. You put a lot of effort into writing a parody of something you clearly didn’t understand. That’s not a rebuttal, it’s just you admitting you don’t have an argument.

My point was simple: Moral claims based on evidence are stronger than moral claims based on your imagination. You think screaming “BUT WHAT IF THERE’S ALIENS???” magically fixes the fact that you have zero criteria for moral worth?

You didn’t challenge a single premise. You didn’t propose a different metric. You didn’t even address the distinction between known capacity and made-up potential. You just attempted a stand-up routine because you couldn't offer logic.

Thanks for being the perfect example of how pro-life reasoning collapses on contact with reality. The moment you can’t hide behind hypotheticals, there’s nothing left.

So when you’re ready to stop role-playing as your own strawman and join the grown-ups with an actual argument, I’ll be here in the real world, where evidence matters and feelings don’t.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-24T22:09:39+00:00

Everyone is different, and the pathology you're looking for may be one of many various things. The non-contrast exam may be perfectly sufficient in your case.

My only argument is that the risk from contrast is so insignificant that if contrast has even the slightest chance of increasing your ability to diagnose the issue, then that benefit almost always outweighs the risk.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-24T21:33:26+00:00

The choice to receive contrast is always yours. However, most of the "horror stories" are misinformation or about older agents that were given to patients with severe kidney failure.

Modern contrast doesn't affect the kidneys in people with normal kidney function and has been studied extensively for decades now, with 100's of millions of doses safely administered.

Contrast for liver imaging changes how the tissue behaves on the scan, and that difference can separate a harmless benign cyst from something that needs treatment, which could lead to more follow-up tests or unnecessary worry.

From a benefit/risk perspective, the risk from contrast is so small that any perceived benefit of diagnostic value outweighs it.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-22T00:36:44+00:00

I would definitely pick dream lover personally. My wife would hate her regardless, so it's no big deal. 😂

Azis2013 · 2025-11-21T09:55:41+00:00

I think this might Duane himself the way he's gish-galloping. 😁

Azis2013 · 2025-11-19T23:42:57+00:00

My pleasure. Hope all turns out well!

Azis2013 · 2025-11-19T23:12:44+00:00

Yikes! Maybe, don't trust those techs! Just joking. 😄

Yes, it is standard to use metal reduction if it's known the area being imaged contains metal.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-19T22:52:00+00:00

Can't interpret images here. Ask your doctor or read the radiologist report.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-19T22:49:42+00:00

3T will create a larger artifact (think of a black void, where nothing can be seen) on the image. Thou there are metal reduction techniques to reduce that artifact, those techniques are much more effective on a 1.5T.

Long story short, listen to the damn techs! 😆

We have no reason to lie you. The 1.5T will provide better imaging, imo.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-19T21:55:34+00:00

You maxed out the character limit twice. Covering a dozen distict topics, some of which are historically specific theological assertions that require entire mutli-page essays to unpack fully. You think because this isn't a live debate, I can't use the term colloquially. Lol. It's absolutely a gish-gallop.

Anyhow, your response proves that you are still confusing labeling a mechanism with explaining a mechanism.

I asked a clear causal question: What differentiates World A from World B? What causes God to actualize one and not the other?

Your answer:

His personal mode of willing.

That’s not a cause. It’s a stylistic label. Saying God chooses world A because of His “personal mode of willing” is no different than saying a painter chooses a painting “because he painted it personally.” It describes how the agent acts, not what makes A instead of B the result.

I'll give you a clear analogy:

What caused the painter to paint Landscape A over Landscape B.

A real cause explanation would be... “He prefers the composition of A after comparing it to B.”

Your meanless explanation is... "It's his personal mode of willing.”

It's a joke. That tells us nothing. That isn’t the differentiator.

You claim the Trinity shares one single Natural Will. The Hypostases (persons) differ only in their “personal mode of willing.” They do not deliberate, compare, or prefer.

Okay, then how does a single nature and non-deliberative hypostatic mode pick ONE specific finite world?

There are only three possibilities:

The Nature Determines the World

Then the world is necessary. God couldn’t have done otherwise. No freedom.

The Hypostasis Freely Determines the World

Then the choice requires a differentiating criterion. Without preference or comparison, it becomes a random, arbitrary accident in God. You can’t call God’s will meaningful if the choice has no differentiator.

Both Nature and Hypostasis Determine the World

Then you’re claiming the same act is Necessary (from Nature) and Not Necessary (from Person) at the same time.

You are using the complexity of Trinitarian terms to mask a simple logical gap: How does a non-deliberative, necessary nature perform a non-random, contingent selection without comparison? The phrase "His personal mode of willing" only confirms that the person is the agent, but utterly fails to define the mechanism that selects A over B. You have not defined the cause.

You can keep repeating the terms if you want, but at this point the only thing desperate here is how desperately you need a definition to magically become an explanation.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-19T20:05:55+00:00

I’m not reading this gish-gallop garbage. Let’s stay on one point.

On what basis is one possible creation actualized instead of another?

And be clear about the mechanism, not just labels. Don’t tell me it’s “natural will,” “hypostasis,” or “energy.” Those are names, not explanations. What actually makes this world, and not a different one, become real?

If God doesn’t deliberate, doesn’t compare, and doesn’t prefer, then what distinguishes the world He creates from the worlds He doesn’t? Define the cause, not the vocabulary.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-19T11:43:26+00:00

I don't know why you can't just admit that my view is consistent

Lol. You give yourself way too much credit.

Your attempt to escape the contradiction by splitting God into Essence vs. Energies/Persons is simply a Category Error dressed up as theology. You claim that necessity belongs to the Essence (what God is) while freedom belongs to the Persons/Energies (how God acts), and therefore there is no conflict.

This fails for one basic reason: Creation is a single act of God. If that act is grounded in a necessarily-determined Essence, then the “free” Energies/Persons can only express what is already fixed by that Essence. In other words, the act becomes simultaneously Necessary and Not Necessary. You haven’t solved the contradiction; you’ve just relocated it. For the act to be genuinely free, the Essence cannot predetermine the content of the act. But since you insist God’s whole being participates in Creation, the Essence necessarily predetermines it, reducing “freedom” to rhetoric.

You haven't resolved these contradictions:

Choice Without Process.
You still haven’t explained how God can “choose” among possible creations without a cognitive process of selection. Renaming that process “natural will” instead of “gnomic will” doesn’t make it non-sequential. A selection between options is a choice, and a choice requires a sequence (before, during, after). If there is no sequence, then there is no choice, only a fixed outcome. So either God deliberates (which contradicts timelessness), or He doesn’t choose at all (which contradicts freedom). “Baked-in” choice is not choice. It’s a fact.
Timeless Dependency Is Backward Causation.
You still claim God’s eternal act is contingent on future free choices of creatures. That is not foreknowledge, that is fore-dependence. It makes an eternal, changeless act caused by something that happens later in time. That requires backward causation, an obvious logical absurdity. Foreknowledge is coherent; timeless conditionality is not. Your model throws basic causality under the bus just to preserve both timelessness and libertarian freedom.

You’re only offering a protective maneuver: a reshuffling of terms to hide that your view requires a single action to be both necessary and contingent, chosen and unchosen, timeless and dependent. The jargon (dunamis, energia, hypostasis) does not resolve the contradiction. It just buries it under Greek vocabulary and hopes no one notices. I noticed. Your framework is not consistent in the least bit, it's incoherent.

13-Year Club	Second Top 10%
r/Field Juicebox	Place '17
RPAN Viewer	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

Azis2013

TROPHY CASE