The Abortion debate: are you pro-life or pro-choice?

[DeletedUser16008]

This is a war that will never be won. Not while people are still trying to make decisions for others.

If you are not a woman you should have no voice, in the end I don't really care about this over dramatised topic to the level some are trying take it to. Its the old drum banging, from what ive seen mainly from hypocrites judging by their take in other threads on other issues.

It will go on and on and on until the end of time. It’s the same as everything else. You can’t have everybody be happy. I just don’t understand why people can’t let people make their own decisions.

You will notice the intolerant usually are the ones demanding everyone does things their way. This debate is no different and the use of the word murder et all over a bean just makes me chuckle, talk about being dramatic.

We have a clear cut off time for abortion leave it alone, it works just fine.

 

[DeletedUser]

This is a war that will never be won. Not while people are still trying to make decisions for others.

If you are not a woman you should have no voice, in the end I don't really care about this over dramatised topic to the level some are trying take it to. Its the old drum banging, from what ive seen mainly from hypocrites (Ad Hominem Fallacy) judging by their take in other threads on other issues.

Like I said at the start of this thread, murder is always a choice.

It will go on and on and on until the end of time. It’s the same as everything else. You can’t have everybody be happy. I just don’t understand why people can’t let people make their own decisions.

When the decision is to murder people sometimes take issue with that regardless of sex.

You will notice the intolerant usually are the ones demanding everyone does things their way. This debate is no different and the use of the word murder et all over a bean just makes me chuckle, talk about being dramatic.

You will notice that is an Ad Hominem Fallacy. You are attacking the supposed debaters instead of arguing the topic.

We have a clear cut off time for abortion leave it alone, it works just fine.

Oh sure murder always works just fine for the perpetrator, but what about the victim? For the unborn it does not "work just fine." Even for the mothers it rarely
"works just fine." There are very real consequences to all involved and even if there were not you still are working on an appeal to consequence fallacy. The presence or lack of consequences do not make a right.

 

[DeletedUser]

It does seem apparent that what my uncle said was true, there is an amount of collusion going on here despite the guarantees there wasn't.

Nope, just rather obvious, but you go ahead and keep acting like you're 2+ people. I could care less. Your participation in debate is not unwanted.

Either the mother or the baby tested positive for drugs of abuse. Of course if you can show some cases where they weren't, I might be persuaded to change my mind. My guess is that you cannot.

Here's one right off the bat ---> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/595048573/Mother-is-charged-in-stillbirth-of-a-twin.html

She was prosecuted because she refused a Cesarean section. Medically it was determined one of the twins could have died regardless of a Cesarean, but she was convicted anyway because she refused a Cesarean, which the prosecution argued would have saved both twins. There are hundreds more, but of course you want me to pose all of them, don't you? Well, I provided a case to debunk your claim, and I move on.

The other point you completely glossed over with your, "everyone gets convicted" line of garbage reasoning is the one in which I pointed out the medical community, including the American Public Health Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, American Society of Addiction Medicine, Child Welfare Organizing Project, Citizens for Midwifery, Global Lawyers & Physicians, Institute for Health & Recovery, International Center for Advancement of Addiction Treatment, National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health, National Council on Alcoholism & Drug Dependence, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, National Women's Health Network, Nancy Day MPH., PhD, Deborah A. Frank M.D., Leslie Hartlie Gise, M.D., Stephen R. Kandall, M.D., James Nocon M.D., Linda L.M. Worley M.D., etc and so on, effectively indicates the drugs used in the below cases have not been demonstrated to impact the the embryo or fetus.

1. http://www.socialworkers.org/assets/secured/documents/ldf/briefDocuments/Kimbrough v Alabama.pdf
2. http://www.socialworkers.org/assets...ents/Gibbs v State MS Sup.Ct.Amicus Brief.pdf

The charge against them is not because they had a miscarriage or a live birth that couldn't make it. The charge against them is because they participated in an illegal act known to be harmful to the baby and the baby died.

Nope, see above. 20% to 30% of unaborted pregnancies result in stillbirths/miscarriages. This is regardless of whether they took a drug. And, as previously indicated above, the medical experts have clearly indicated in the above appeals that there is NO known harm imposed by the majority of drugs being alleged to cause harm in these cases. It's a lie, and you bought into it.

You are right, it is not a theological debate, however, you imposing concepts and ignoring the reality of the situation suggest you are demanding your theology is the only one that matters.

Look who is imposing and ignoring. I presented facts and evidence, you present rhetoric and it's all you've ever presented. But thanks for playing.

The women's health or the child's health is cited as a reason for an abortion in about 3% of all abortions performed in the US each year. Depending on where you look, between 1% and 7% of all abortions each year performed in the US are the result of rape or incest. So adding them together, it is safe to say that less then 15% of abortions are for what most of everyone would consider to be a valid reason. The other 75-85% of abortions are basically for reasons birth control is taken for.

Care to provide sources for your numbers?

Now you keep bringing up this woman's life in danger as if you think you are on to something. Well, it seems that women who have abortions are 4 times more likely to die then women who give birth to their child.

Lol, I have no idea where you're getting your figures, but that is clearly wrong. As I indicated in an earlier post, "the United Nations estimates 277,000 to 817,000 women die per year (800 to 2200 every day) due to pregnancy. A woman is over 13 times more likely to die from attempting pregnancy as opposed to obtaining an abortion. Oh, and have you ever heard of gestational diabetes? It is the most common type of diabetes and happens in about 5 percent of all pregnancies" demonstrating, on just one medical issue (not including all the others listed in my previous posts), the medical risks associated with pregnancies. ~ http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mi/goals_2005/goal_5.pdf

But all in all, it seems your chances of dieing from a car accident is greater then the chances of dieing from either birth or abortion. So I think you are making more of it then needs be. The safest route seems to be not getting pregnant at all which goes back to a comment a few days ago concerning making the decision to have a baby before become pregnant.

Oho, you really bit the big one now. According to the CIA, maternal death in the United States (in 2008) was 24 per 100,000 (many countries have far worse numbers, some higher than 1000 per 100,000). ~ Click Here for CIA Report or you can Click here for the U.N. Statistics Division

Now, what was your number for auto accidents again? Because I bothered to check, and it's less than or equal to (depending on the age group) that of maternal death rates in the United States, and far lower than than that of many other nations' maternal death rates (in fact, it is listed by the CDC as 7.5 per 100,000 for "women." Oop, there it is, clear demonstration that in the U.S., pregnancy is more than 3 times more life endangering than driving an automobile, and more than 100 times more dangerous than almost all third world nations).



Anyway, I need to focus on the U.S. release of Forge of Empires so it is unlikely I will participate further in these debates, at least to any degree. Thank you very much, everyone, for participating and keeping me engaged. I enjoyed it thoroughly and hope you all continue debating.

 

[DeletedUser]

Your premise is lacking in some thought.

What premise? I made an observation. Do you even know what a premise is? Oh, never mind, let's look at what you posted.

Lets look at it. Death penalty is, punishment for a crime where society says we are safer without the convicted being alive, right to keep and bear arms and self defense is your right to self preservation. You can give it up if you want, but do not expect others to commit suicide. We can lump being a carnivore and hunting and fishing in the same category- self preservation. If you do not eat, you do not live. Military intervention abroad is more in line with the first, punishment for a crime or to stop something worse from happening. Although it can happen to secure a resource the country is in need of or to protect friendly countries which is more in line with self preservation.

All totally unfounded assertions. Let's look at them:
1.The death penalty. "Society says" is an awful basis for an argument. Even you must see that. But never mind. Let me make up some figures. Let's say that of all judicially murdered killers 5% are innocent - that's probably a low estimate btw; witnesses are often unreliable, police are under pressure to show results etc. - but it doesn't matter, I'm only hypothesising some figures. Now, of the other 95%, suppose that they were given life instead of the death penalty. Let me assume that 10% of them escape or otherwise evade their full sentence, and of those that do, 10% go on to claim another life.
On those figures,even as an innocent party, I am over 5 times more likely to lose my life by being wrongfully executed that as a result of the non-application of the death penalty. Thus, "self-preservation" would definitely lead me to oppose the death penalty in this case. Now those figures I just made up. But what are the real figures? Because without them your argument is toast.
2. Right to bear arms. Likewise, I consider myself safer if my fellow citizens are not carrying firearms. So my "self-preservation" in this instance requires strict gun control laws.
3.Eating meat. Self-preservation? Where are your statistics that meat-eaters live longer than vegetarians? They don't, you know. Again "self-preservation" can be used to demolish your argument.
4. Hunting and fishing. Carrying firearms and knives in tick-country sounds like the opposite of "self-preservation" to me. You would certainly be safer mowing the lawn and ordering in a pizza.
5. Military intervention. Granted, defensive wars are sometimes necessary, but "to secure a resource" of another country? Do me a favour. That's just armed robbery at a national level.
Your arguments lack both logic and any breadth of vision.

There is a pattern there. Self preservation, safety, so why is it a stretch that some of those same people would want to protect, to ensure the safety of unborn children? Seems the logical thing to me.

Now since you've stretched the notion of "self-preservation" to eating fatty foods, running around the woods with a gun, and ransacking the wealth of other nations, why should any woman not use it to defend her own right to live without an unwanted, inconvenient and expensive liability for the best part of twenty years?

Let's look at this. First, your religion (and almost ability to practice it) has nothing to do with this as it does not elevate you above anyone else.

Religion's not relevant in a debate on abortion? I wonder how Catholics and other Christians feel about that. Ofc my religion does not elevate me, but thank you for considering I could think it might.

Your inability to harm an animal or insect seems a little off the subject of human life too, unless you somehow think the life of a human and insects are somehow the same.

It's a choice, not an inability, in case you know the difference.
And yes, while each animal is different, I do think that all life is to be respected. I don't think there's anything special about human life over any other sort - it's just the kind I happen to have. It's quite nice to be an intelligent ape and to be able to converse, but I don't think that humans are some kind of magical super-species totally unlike everything else on earth and that our desires trump everything else. I'd never have an abortion, just as I'd never eat meat (again), I just don't go around criticising people who do.

Supporting strict gun control doesn't mean much either. I know people who own guns and have never taken a life with them- animal or human.

And I know women who've never had an abortion. What's your point?

As for being against the death penalty and blood sports, well, that is your choice but it doesn't really support a call to kill unborn children at the mothers will.

You really didn't understand the post if that's what you took from it.

I suggest that it's because you simply have not thought it through or have let your ideology blind you making it impossible for real thought on the subject.

Well, at least one of us has a Masters Degree in Philosophy, and I'm thinking it may not be you.

As far as Eli's post is concerned its just a AD HOMINEM fallacy. Now you are just attacking the opposition rather than debating the issue.

No, you clearly do not understand what the ad hominem fallacy is - it involves referring to a single, identifiable individual in order to put all their acts on the same moral level. Saying "having a beard is good, because Jesus had a beard" would be an example.
On the other hand, talking about which beliefs are mutually consistent is the essence of argument.

 

[DeletedUser]

Nope, just rather obvious, but you go ahead and keep acting like you're 2+ people. I could care less. Your participation in debate is not unwanted.


Here's one right off the bat ---> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/595048573/Mother-is-charged-in-stillbirth-of-a-twin.html

She was prosecuted because she refused a Cesarean section. Medically it was determined one of the twins could have died regardless of a Cesarean, but she was convicted anyway because she refused a Cesarean, which the prosecution argued would have saved both twins. There are hundreds more, but of course you want me to pose all of them, don't you? Well, I provided a case to debunk your claim, and I move on.

The other point you completely glossed over with your, "everyone gets convicted" line of garbage reasoning is the one in which I pointed out the medical community, including the American Public Health Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, American Society of Addiction Medicine, Child Welfare Organizing Project, Citizens for Midwifery, Global Lawyers & Physicians, Institute for Health & Recovery, International Center for Advancement of Addiction Treatment, National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health, National Council on Alcoholism & Drug Dependence, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, National Women's Health Network, Nancy Day MPH., PhD, Deborah A. Frank M.D., Leslie Hartlie Gise, M.D., Stephen R. Kandall, M.D., James Nocon M.D., Linda L.M. Worley M.D., etc and so on, refutes drug use (in particular the drugs alleged to have been used by the persons during pregnancy) has not been demonstrated to impact the the embryo or fetus.

http://www.socialworkers.org/assets/secured/documents/ldf/briefDocuments/Kimbrough v Alabama.pdf

http://www.socialworkers.org/assets...ents/Gibbs v State MS Sup.Ct.Amicus Brief.pdf


Nope, see above. 20% to 30% of unaborted pregnancies result in stillbirths/miscarriages. This is regardless of whether they took a drug. And, as previously indicated above, the medical experts have clearly indicated in the above appeals that there is NO known harm imposed by the majority of drugs being alleged to cause harm in these cases. It's a lie, and you bought into it.


Look who is imposing and ignoring. I presented facts and evidence, you present rhetoric and it's all you've ever presented. But thanks for playing.


Care to provide sources for your numbers?


Lol, I have no idea where you're getting your figures, but that is clearly wrong. As I indicated in an earlier post, "the United Nations estimates 277,000 to 817,000 women die per year (800 to 2200 every day) due to pregnancy. A woman is over 13 times more likely to die from attempting pregnancy as opposed to obtaining an abortion. Oh, and have you ever heard of gestational diabetes? It is the most common type of diabetes and happens in about 5 percent of all pregnancies" demonstrating, on just one medical issue (not including all the others listed in my previous posts), the medical risks associated with pregnancies. ~ http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mi/goals_2005/goal_5.pdf



Oho, you really bit the big one now. According to the CIA, maternal death in the United States (in 2008) was 24 per 100,000 (many countries have far worse numbers, some higher than 1000 per 100,000). ~ Click Here for CIA Report Click here for the U.N. Statistics Division

Now, what was your number for auto accidents again? Because I bothered to check, and it's less than or equal to (depending on the age group) that of maternal death rates in the United States, and far lower than than that of many other nations' maternal death rates.



Anyway, I need to focus on the U.S. release of Forge of Empires so it is unlikely I will participate further in these debates, at least to any degree. Thank you very much, everyone, for participating and keeping me engaged. I enjoyed it thoroughly and hope you all continue debating.

Your argument is still resting on the notion that "belief in the unborn's right to life will cause these consequences so the unborn does not have the right to life" is still a fallacy. It is a appeal to consequence which is a type of Red Herring.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Drama drama drama. Get off your soap box for goodness sake, you don't really care about the unborn foetuses your just banging the same old drum on behalf of another's crusade.

It is pointless debating this topic as whatever the cut off point, there will be the same old crowd, shouting the same old stuff and will mostly be men. Now why is that ? we already know men care less about life and protecting other humans than women do in general, personally it seems to be nothing but the usual control and guilt tactics employed over so long and so many subjects.

You may argue with these points but for a change these are women and have a womans perspective, none that are here wish to post and frankly im sick of hearing from men who think they know better in feigned sanctimonious posts about a womans business.

Each person has a unique reason to be pro-choice. Here are some womens views for a change.

I am pro-choice because I don't think there is any reason why a woman should have to face all the consequences from something she did not do alone. If a guy can get a woman pregnant and then run away, there is no reason why she should be the one responsible for everything. Having more options puts a woman on more equal footing with men, instead of being someone of whom they can take advantage. In addition, I believe that it is best for a child to not be born at all than to be born hated, to a mother who is forced to have him because she has no choice, and not because she wants the child.
Helen Undergraduate Student in Chemistry

The single most important factor for women's advancement in society is our ability to control our fertility. Without that, we are trapped by the realities of pregnancy, childbirth and chilrearing; rather than a privelege and a gift, these aspect of being female become an unbearable burden. Attempts to limit women's reproductive freedom are no more than a gambit to keep women "in their place"-- a gambit in the guise of religious moralism. True, the guise can run deep, and many so-called "pro-lifers" genuinely believe that killing a fetus is equivalent to killing a human being. But such religious feeling has no place in the public policies of a country that claims to separate church and state. In the words of supreme court justices O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." No one wants to plan an abortion. But the best way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies: through sex education, improved distribution of birth control, and general empowerment of women to shape our own individual lives.
Geena Graduate Student in Biology

I think one of the biggest problems with the abortion debate is that the two sides aren't in direct opposition. The pro-life movement seeks to force their moral beliefs on others - grounded in their own religion or personal philosophy. The pro-choice movement doesn't make claims on the morality of abortion - we leave that as an individual choice for every woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy. If they feel abortion is wrong and they want to give their child up for adoption, or keep it, we will support their decision. Pro-life people say "Abortion is wrong;" we only say "Abortion is." Making abortion illegal won't stop abortions from happening, it will only stop them from being safe. 43% of abortions worldwide are illegal. Changing laws doesn't solve the problem, making contraception available and affordable does. If we are to maintain the separation of church and state so central to our nation's identity, we cannot have some people forcing their beliefs on us all.
Yin Lee Undergraduate Student in Linguistics and Philosophy

I believe strongly in taking responsibilities for one's actions. I believe that people should practice safe sex or abstinence. And I believe that the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy can be worse than the "benefits" of having irresponsible sex. However, in some cases, I believe that abortion IS taking responsibility. Bringing an unwanted child into the world is irresponsible. I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. I believe that every woman should decide what to do with her own body without restrictions placed on her by a strongly religious government that ironically preaches the 200 year old doctrine of the separation of church and state. On that note, I think religious freedom and education are also a constitutional right of every citizen, but they do not belong in the hospital room. Reproductive freedom is just as sacred and constitutional as religious freedom. And I am not the opposite of "pro-life." I love life and I love babies, but an unwanted life can be worse than no life at all. I think safe sex and abstinence education is needed. Like many pro-choice believers, I want the number of abortions to be limited, or at least I want to limit the overwhelming need for abortions.
Melissa Graduate Student in Materials Science and Engineering

This is my favourite and sums it up quite nicely.

I'm pro-choice because it's the only option that isn't poisoned with misogyny. I believe that we are responsible for justifying our beliefs, and just as one cannot claim that a given race is inferior to another because "it's what I believe", I don't think one can argue that old white men can assert control over a woman's uterus -- and future -- because they claim to believe that a fetus is comparable to a human life. That belief is so clearly a result of the fact that only women can get pregnant and only women would ever have to carry an unwanted fetus to term that I find it laughable that anyone claims being anti-choice has anything to do with concern for potential life. Can anyone really believe that abortion would even be an issue if men had to face the possiblity of giving birth to and raising a child because of one night of failed contraception?
I think Florence Kennedy said it best: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrement."
Purdy Undergraduate Student in Mathematics

 

[DeletedUser]

No, you clearly do not understand what the ad hominem fallacy is - it involves referring to a single, identifiable individual in order to put all their acts on the same moral level. Saying "having a beard is good, because Jesus had a beard" would be an example.
On the other hand, talking about which beliefs are mutually consistent is the essence of argument.

Regular Ad Hominem
A makes claim B;
there is something objectionable about A,
therefore claim B is false.

You are saying A's motives are questionable or the way he is arguing is wrong therefore Claim B is false. That is pretty much the definition of the Ad Hominem fallacy.

 

[DeletedUser]

Drama drama drama. Get off your soap box for goodness sake, you don't really care about the unborn foetuses your just banging the same old drum on behalf of another's crusade.

Ad hominem Fallacy.

It is pointless debating this topic as whatever the cut off point, there will be the same old crowd, shouting the same old stuff and will mostly be men. Now why is that ? we already know men care less about life and protecting other humans than women do in general, personally it seems to be nothing but the usual control and guilt tactics employed over so long and so many subjects.

If this topic is pointless to you feel free to exclude yourself from the debate.

You may argue with these points but for a change these are women and have a womans perspective, none that are here wish to post and frankly im sick of hearing from men who think they know better in feigned sanctimonious posts about a womans business.

Ad hominem Fallacy.

Each person has a unique reason to be pro-choice. Here are some womens views for a change.

I am pro-choice because I don't think there is any reason why a woman should have to face all the consequences from something she did not do alone. If a guy can get a woman pregnant and then run away, there is no reason why she should be the one responsible for everything. Having more options puts a woman on more equal footing with men, instead of being someone of whom they can take advantage. In addition, I believe that it is best for a child to not be born at all than to be born hated, to a mother who is forced to have him because she has no choice, and not because she wants the child.
Helen Undergraduate Student in Chemistry

Blatant appeal to consequences (red herring).

The single most important factor for women's advancement in society is our ability to control our fertility. Without that, we are trapped by the realities of pregnancy, childbirth and chilrearing; rather than a privelege and a gift, these aspect of being female become an unbearable burden. Attempts to limit women's reproductive freedom are no more than a gambit to keep women "in their place"-- a gambit in the guise of religious moralism. True, the guise can run deep, and many so-called "pro-lifers" genuinely believe that killing a fetus is equivalent to killing a human being. But such religious feeling has no place in the public policies of a country that claims to separate church and state. In the words of supreme court justices O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." No one wants to plan an abortion. But the best way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies: through sex education, improved distribution of birth control, and general empowerment of women to shape our own individual lives.
Geena Graduate Student in Biology

This does not address the issue of the unborn's right to life and there is an easy way to prevent pregnancy called abstinence.

I think one of the biggest problems with the abortion debate is that the two sides aren't in direct opposition. The pro-life movement seeks to force their moral beliefs on others - grounded in their own religion or personal philosophy. The pro-choice movement doesn't make claims on the morality of abortion - we leave that as an individual choice for every woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy. If they feel abortion is wrong and they want to give their child up for adoption, or keep it, we will support their decision. Pro-life people say "Abortion is wrong;" we only say "Abortion is." Making abortion illegal won't stop abortions from happening, it will only stop them from being safe. 43% of abortions worldwide are illegal. Changing laws doesn't solve the problem, making contraception available and affordable does. If we are to maintain the separation of church and state so central to our nation's identity, we cannot have some people forcing their beliefs on us all.
Yin Lee Undergraduate Student in Linguistics and Philosophy

Appeal to consequences (red herring).

I believe strongly in taking responsibilities for one's actions. I believe that people should practice safe sex or abstinence. And I believe that the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy can be worse than the "benefits" of having irresponsible sex. However, in some cases, I believe that abortion IS taking responsibility. Bringing an unwanted child into the world is irresponsible. I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. I believe that every woman should decide what to do with her own body without restrictions placed on her by a strongly religious government that ironically preaches the 200 year old doctrine of the separation of church and state. On that note, I think religious freedom and education are also a constitutional right of every citizen, but they do not belong in the hospital room. Reproductive freedom is just as sacred and constitutional as religious freedom. And I am not the opposite of "pro-life." I love life and I love babies, but an unwanted life can be worse than no life at all. I think safe sex and abstinence education is needed. Like many pro-choice believers, I want the number of abortions to be limited, or at least I want to limit the overwhelming need for abortions.
Melissa Graduate Student in Materials Science and Engineering

Appeal to consequences (red herring). This is not about religion, it is about the unborn's right to life.

This is my favourite and sums it up quite nicely.

I'm pro-choice because it's the only option that isn't poisoned with misogyny. I believe that we are responsible for justifying our beliefs, and just as one cannot claim that a given race is inferior to another because "it's what I believe", I don't think one can argue that old white men can assert control over a woman's uterus -- and future -- because they claim to believe that a fetus is comparable to a human life. That belief is so clearly a result of the fact that only women can get pregnant and only women would ever have to carry an unwanted fetus to term that I find it laughable that anyone claims being anti-choice has anything to do with concern for potential life. Can anyone really believe that abortion would even be an issue if men had to face the possiblity of giving birth to and raising a child because of one night of failed contraception?
I think Florence Kennedy said it best: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrement."
Purdy Undergraduate Student in Mathematics

Ad hominem (against men no less) Fallacy and women have the ability to control pregnancy called abstinence.

So here is my argument summed up. The unborn is a human life and as such should be afforded the right to life. Anything ells is just a distraction from the issue.

 

[DeletedUser]

So here is the foundation of this issue:
If you think unborn is not alive, by what criteria are you coming to that conclusion?
If you think the unborn is not human, by what criteria are you coming to that conclusion?
If you cannot answer either of these two questions with certainty, by what criteria can you say abortion is not murder?

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Ad hominem Fallacy. This your new words of the week ?

 

[DeletedUser]

Ad hominem Fallacy. This your new words of the week ?

No, more like it has become the fallacy of the week. I'm just the one pointing it out.

 

[DeletedUser]

Just to interject, Willy your fallacy labels are a bit off, in some cases completely off. You're also still failing to point out "how" and "where" the alleged fallacies are being applied, instead quoting entire paragraphs and responding with "hairy bottom fallacy" or whichever fallacy label you happen to grab at the time. May I suggest you study further.

Respectfully,
Hellstromm

 

[DeletedUser]

Just to interject, Willy your fallacy labels are a bit off, in some cases completely off. You're also still failing to point out "how" and "where" the alleged fallacies are being applied, instead quoting entire paragraphs and responding with "hairy bottom fallacy" or whichever fallacy label you happen to grab at the time. May I suggest you study further.

Respectfully,
Hellstromm

Well Hellstromm if you have a specific example you want to discuss feel free to bring it up. You can be assured I wont tell you "go look it up," but I will tell you exactly how it applies to the debate. At least I do not rest on the word fallacy as if it were self exclamatory.

 

[DeletedUser]

Regular Ad Hominem
A makes claim B;
there is something objectionable about A,
therefore claim B is false.

You are saying A's motives are questionable or the way he is arguing is wrong therefore Claim B is false. That is pretty much the definition of the Ad Hominem fallacy.

OMG Willy, I never said that pro-lifers, gun enthusiasts, carnivores etc. were objectionable, so that judgement must have come from you. There is light at the end of this tunnel after all.

Good post back there Vic. I'm thinking it must be almost scientifically possible now to implant a foetus into a healthy male and have it come to term. When it is, I wonder how many guys who currently argue for the sanctity of unborn lives will put their money where their big mouths are and save a human life by 'hosting' a foetus otherwise destined to be terminated. My guess is, precisely zero, because these keyboard crusaders are all about talking a big game and doing squat all.

 

[DeletedUser]

OMG Willy, I never said that pro-lifers, gun enthusiasts, carnivores etc. were objectionable, so that judgement must have come from you. There is light at the end of this tunnel after all.

So let me reiterate. "Why is it that often the same people who advocate the death penalty, the right to bear arms and use lethal force in self-defence, support military interventions abroad and are ethusiastically carnivorous and enjoy hunting and fishing suddenly become all misty-eyed over the right of a foetus to life?"
Here you are implying that "pro-lifers, gun enthusiasts, carnivores etc." are being hypocritical in having the view that human life is sacred, because they eat meat or hunt; however you are such a tree huger and that life is so sacred to you, but you don't have a problem with abortion. Did I get that about right?

 

[DeletedUser]

So let me reiterate. "Why is it that often the same people who advocate the death penalty, the right to bear arms and use lethal force in self-defence, support military interventions abroad and are ethusiastically carnivorous and enjoy hunting and fishing suddenly become all misty-eyed over the right of a foetus to life?"
Here you are implying that "pro-lifers, gun enthusiasts, carnivores etc." are being hypocritical in having the view that human life is sacred, because they eat meat or hunt; however you are such a tree huger and that life is so sacred to you, but you don't have a problem with abortion. Did I get that about right?

There you go again, reading into things what ain't there. There are no implications except the ones you provide for yourself. You chose the label "hypocritical" rather than "inconsistent", "illogical", "obtuse" or maybe even "dumb". Your choice, but if the cap fits then wear it.
To me a "tree-hugger" is someone who knows where their oxygen comes from and wants to make damn sure it doesn't run out, but I don't know where you got the idea that I was one. Another of your "implications"?
You're right on one thing though - I DON'T have a problem with abortion. I don't have a problem with people eating meat either. In fact I have very few problems at all, partly because I don't preach at people and tell them how they should run their lives. It makes for better friendships, too.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

You're right on one thing though - I DON'T have a problem with abortion. I don't have a problem with people eating meat either. In fact I have very few problems at all, partly because I don't preach at people and tell them how they should run their lives. It makes for better friendships, too.

+1 and if it weren't for the religious nut brigade constantly telling people what they should and shouldn't do things would move along a lot smoother. Church and state are supposed to be separate hence why there are abortion laws. If you are part of some religious sect that frowns on it, fine, confine it to your own community rather than trying to ram the guff down everyone elses throats dressed in over dramatic claims of murdering a few bits of flesh yet to be human.

look after your own life and how it can help others before trying to impose your churches ideals on others, try adopting a few needy kids im sure youd be happy to give them a home or financially support a few deprived families with hungry children or go volunteer in a rape centre. In fact go out into the world and do something positive yourself rather than preach from your armchair ideals to others that affect you not at all but rather just them. If you are doing nothing to help unwanted children your just talking hot air, as usual.

Oh and for the record it is religious groups that push this pro-life twaddle more than anyone else, even came up with a guilt laden title for it. Propagandist dogma is all it really is.

 

[DeletedUser]

Your argument is still resting on the notion that "belief in the unborn's right to life will cause these consequences so the unborn does not have the right to life" is still a fallacy. It is a appeal to consequence which is a type of Red Herring.

Just to cover this quickly. It is not an appeal to consequence, nor is your understanding of such even remotely correct. Now, you completely glossed over the woman's right to life. As it stands, a fetus/embryo cannot survive on its own during the first trimester, which is the period of time in which abortions are alllowed without medical prescription. So, your argument of right to life by ignoring a woman's right to life and advocating a non-viable embryo's right to life, really just doesn't cut it.

But nice try. Alright, back to Innogame's Forge of Empires I go, later.

 

[DeletedUser]

+1 and if it weren't for the religious nut brigade constantly telling people what they should and shouldn't do things would move along a lot smoother. Church and state are supposed to be separate hence why there are abortion laws. If you are part of some religious sect that frowns on it, fine, confine it to your own community rather than trying to ram the guff down everyone elses throats dressed in over dramatic claims of murdering a few bits of flesh yet to be human.

look after your own life and how it can help others before trying to impose your churches ideals on others, try adopting a few needy kids im sure youd be happy to give them a home or financially support a few deprived families with hungry children or go volunteer in a rape centre. In fact go out into the world and do something positive yourself rather than preach from your armchair ideals to others that affect you not at all but rather just them. If you are doing nothing to help unwanted children your just talking hot air, as usual.

Oh and for the record it is religious groups that push this pro-life twaddle more than anyone else, even came up with a guilt laden title for it. Propagandist dogma is all it really is.

If you are saying religious nut, pro-life twaddle, illogical, obtuse, or dumb, you are still arguing the same fallacy. The opposition is not the topic, the rights of the unborn are. So I'll ask again:

If you think unborn is not alive, by what criteria are you coming to that conclusion?
If you think the unborn is not human, by what criteria are you coming to that conclusion?
If you cannot answer either of these two questions with certainty, by what criteria can you say abortion is not murder?
__________________

 

[DeletedUser]

Just to cover this quickly. It is not an appeal to consequence, nor is your understanding of such even remotely correct. Now, you completely glossed over the woman's right to life. As it stands, a fetus/embryo cannot survive on its own during the first trimester, which is the period of time in which abortions are alllowed without medical prescription. So, your argument of right to life by ignoring a woman's right to life and advocating a non-viable embryo's right to life, really just doesn't cut it.

But nice try. Alright, back to Innogame's Forge of Empires I go, later.

(Belief in) p leads to bad consequences.
(Where the bad consequences are irrelevant to the falsity of p.)
Therefore, p is false.
So exactly how does the fact that pregnancy is not safe take away the rights of the unborn?

So if you cannot live on your own that is criteria to take away your right to life? I guess the elderly and infirm do not have the right to life, and that goes for all children and disabled by that logic.