• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Recent content by BuffScarecrow

  1. B

    Against pro-choice: redux

    Indeed it would but I was arguing specifically over abortion ethics. By the time abortion becomes possible, the right to life has already been violated according to the pro-life view. This argument is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice.
  2. B

    Against pro-choice: redux

    This has no bearing on the argument. I only ever considered a subset of all things that could be considered causes. Do you deny that two statements that satisfy my criteria have a causal link? A and B are both propositions. A<=>B has nothing to do with causality. It only concerns the truth of...
  3. B

    Against pro-choice: redux

    There seems to be some uncertainty on precisely what I mean by causality. In particular, what I mean by A if and only if B is that if the statement A is true, then B is true and if B is true, then A is true. This means that A is both a sufficient and necessary condition for B. For example...
  4. B

    Against pro-choice: redux

    I didn't give a definition; I gave a sufficient condition. Would you care to give any A and B that satify my criteria for which B could not be said to have been reasonably caused by A?
  5. B

    Against pro-choice: redux

    I request to those who don't believe that procreation causes death to argue specifically against my previous post: I don't believe any logical errors have been made. The only way I see to get around the conclusion would be to deny my condition on causality which some seem to have not understood...
  6. B

    Against pro-choice: redux

    Being a pure consequentialist, I'd suggest that rights in general don't exist at all. This argument was intended solely as an exploration into the logical implications of some assumptions commonly invoked by both major parties of the abortion debate. Nonetheless, I regard the components of the...
  7. B

    Against pro-choice: redux

    Do you suggest we use something other than logic to make inferences? What people choose to do with this information is up to them. If they consider the right to life to exist axiomatically, then procreation would violate that and therefore to act consistently within their beliefs, they'd need to...
  8. B

    Against pro-choice: redux

    To clarify, a sufficient condition for A to cause B is that A precedes B, and A <=> B. It's never the case that someone comes into existence and doesn't die (assumed in (2)). Therefore, coming into existence is a sufficient condition to die. If someone dies, they must have come into existence...
  9. B

    Against pro-choice: redux

    I posted this elsewhere but the pro-choicers were seemingly too apathetic to respond. The million dollar question remains: is this piece of reasoning valid?
  10. B

    Against pro-choice

    It's often claimed that a fetus doesn't obtain personhood until it becomes sentient and that therefore having an abortion before this point doesn't violate their right to life. I aim to show this view to be false as follows; 1. A sufficient condition for one's right to life to have been...