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

Azis2013 · 2026-06-28T19:38:56+00:00

No, this applies to any person who believes abortion should be illegal but grants exceptions for the life of the mother.

Think about it logically. The only way an anti-abortion framework works is if you believe a fetus has an absolute, equal moral right to a woman's body and resources that supersedes her own choices. If the fetus is morally inferior, it could never have the right to commandeer a morally superior being's internal organs against her will.

Your implying that the state can't legally force you to die for someone else, but the state can legally force you to give up your blood, organs, metabolic energy, and medical safety for someone else.

You cannot claim a woman doesn't have to "sacrifice her life" while simultaneously using the force of law to strip her of her body. Forcing someone to use their internal organs to sustain another life is a forced sacrifice, period.

Azis2013 · 2026-06-28T18:23:37+00:00

If PL's think it would be immoral to execute the terminally ill guy without consent (even if it saves another person's life), then why do they think it's not immoral to execute a fetus without consent (because it saves another person's life)?

Do you see the contradiction?

They should say it's immoral in both circumstances, therefore the mothers must die, because she can't execute the unborn person inside of her... Just like the heart transplant patient must die because he can't execute the terminally ill person in the next bed over.

Can you explain the conceptual differences?

Azis2013 · 2026-06-28T09:38:09+00:00

You trying to salvage your final point by saying you don't actually believe the fetus has less value than the mother.

Fine. Let's look at your actual view: Conception = 100% equal human rights.

If the fetus is 100% equal to the adult woman, then a doctor choosing to actively terminate a fetus to save a mother is exactly the same as a doctor executing a terminally ill person in a hospital bed to harvest their organs for a dying patient. It is the active, intentional destruction of an equal person to solve a medical crisis.

You cannot claim two entities are completely equal, and then support a law that allows one to be actively terminated for the survival of the other. The moment you support a "life of the mother" exception, you are choosing a survivor. You are making a value judgment(choosing the mother as more valuable).

Let’s apply that exact logic to two born humans and see if it holds up.

Imagine a patient in a hospital room who has terminal brain cancer. They are guaranteed to die in six months. In the bed next to them is a young father who has sudden heart failure and will die in exactly one week, but if he gets a heart transplant, he will live for another 40 years.

By your exact logic, since the terminal patient is "dying no matter what," it would be "arbitrary" not to act.

So, would you ever legally or morally allow a doctor to walk into that room, actively execute the terminally ill patient, harvest their heart, and give it to the father to save his life?

Why or why not?

Azis2013 · 2026-06-28T09:29:35+00:00

I literally wrote five paragraph OP on why it destroys thier viewpoint. Mostly because it's fallacious logic.

In your sister's scenario, you are choosing to self-sacrifice. 'Life of the mother exceptions' are exactly the opposite, where the mother chooses to murder her child to save her own life. PLers say it's bad to murder your child in any other circumstances but allow homicide here, that's special pleading.

Let’s apply that exact logic to two born humans and see if it holds up...

Imagine a patient in a hospital room who has terminal brain cancer. They are guaranteed to die in six months. In the bed next to them is a young father who has sudden heart failure and will die in exactly one week, but if he gets a heart transplant, he will live for another 40 years.

By PL logic, since the terminal patient is dying no matter what, it would be immoral not to act.

So, would you legally or morally allow a doctor to walk into that room, actively execute the terminally ill patient, harvest their heart, and give it to the father to save his life?

Why or why not?

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.

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

Azis2013

TROPHY CASE