Abortion

[Cheli]

Wow. Your contradicting yourself and breaking your own rules in one post. First statistics dont matter, then they are needed by you as proof? Oh thats a good one.

I didn't say stats don't ever matter. What I was saying was that the stat about rape that the poster used was an irrelevent stat because even though the percentage of pregnancies through rape is small it does not effect the right to an abortion. I was asking the poster for stats to back up her POV that most women regret their choice. This would have some bearing on the argument even if ony to say that abortion couselling should be improved.

"Pro-choice" = Red herring

Not the case. Pro-choice means just that. Being for the right to choice whether or not a woman can end her pregnancy.

switches the issue from "Is abortion murder?" to "Can a woman choose?".

No it doesn't. We answer the initial question by saying, "Abortion is not murder" and then provide evidence that an embryo should notbe considered a human until a certain point. People will always disagree on this evidence. That it where the arguments begin.

the "right-to-choose" argument, though vague, could basically be reconstructed as follows: (1) Nothing that we have a right to choose can be wrong. (2) But we do have a right to choose an abortion. (3) Therefore, abortion is not wrong.

This is not how the pro-choice argument starts. In order for you to successfully argue against something I suggest that you understand it first.

 

[]RiSeN[]

I didn't say stats don't ever matter. What I was saying was that the stat about rape that the poster used was an irrelevent stat because even though the percentage of pregnancies through rape is small it does not effect the right to an abortion. I was asking the poster for stats to back up her POV that most women regret their choice. This would have some bearing on the argument even if ony to say that abortion couselling should be improved.

Still illogical.

Not the case. Pro-choice means just that. Being for the right to choice whether or not a woman can end her pregnancy.

Still red herring.

No it doesn't. We answer the initial question by saying, "Abortion is not murder" and then provide evidence that an embryo should notbe considered a human until a certain point. People will always disagree on this evidence. That it where the arguments begin.

Conjecture backed by conjecture.

This is not how the pro-choice argument starts. In order for you to successfully argue against something I suggest that you understand it first.

I suggest you involve logical reasoning in your arguments, it helps alot.

Your post = more red herring backed by conjectures of more red herring which beg the question.

 

[Cheli]

Still illogical.

Not illogical, but about relevent stats.

Still red herring.

It's nothing like a red herring. It doesn't mislead. It is what it says it is.

Conjecture backed by conjecture.

What's conjecture? You said that pro-choicers change the question from "Is abortion murder?" to "Can a woman choose?" My post showed that we do address the former question. If by cojecture you are refering to the disagreement concerning the "human-ness" of an embryo, then I was correct in saying that this is where the argument begins.

I suggest you involve logical reasoning in your arguments, it helps alot.

Just taking my lead from you
Pro-chice argument (centering on what you consider to be the original question):
1)Murder involves the killing of a human
2)An embryo is not a human
3)Therefore aborting an embryo does not equal murder

 

[]RiSeN[]

Electric Skeptic, just because you dont like how the logic and reasoning behind the argument of pro-choice is defined when brought to light does not make it any less logical. Nor does it make it an ad-hominem just because the logic behind your argument has been shot full of holes by examination and broader application demonstrating how it is in fact illogical philosophy. What? Why cant the scientific method be applied ot the hypothesis of pro-choice??

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Yeah, looks like you have learned all the internet lingo, congratulations. "Ad hominem", "strawman". How original.

Sorry, but that's not 'internet lingo'. It's been used in debating long before there was an internet. And sorry if you don't like it...I suggest to avoid it in the future you don't post articles that use ad hominem and strawman.

And from your responses it is obvious you have lost ground becasue there is no good debate for abortion, no matter how much you wish there were. THAT is the only thing that killed this debate.

Obvious to you, perhaps.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Electric Skeptic, just because you dont like how the logic and reasoning behind the argument of pro-choice is defined when brought to light does not make it any less logical.

There was no logic in the article in question, nor did it bring anything 'to light'.

Nor does it make it an ad-hominem just because the logic behind your argument has been shot full of holes by examination and broader application demonstrating how it is in fact illogical philosophy.

The article in question didn't shoot anything full of holes, nor did it examine anything. It just cast a few slurs, invented a strawman or two...

Why cant the scientific method be applied ot the hypothesis of pro-choice??

What on earth do you think the scientific method has to do with this?

 

[Cheli]

is no good debate for abortion, no matter how much you wish there were.

Good is a relative term. There is a strong argument for abortion (otherwise it never would've been made legal); you just refuse to see it. And when it is made clear to you, you resort to personal attacks.

]Fa||eN[ , the original article you posted was devoid of logic. It didn't even have the pro-choice argument right. It was nothing but misinformed rhetoric.

 

[]RiSeN[]

Good is a relative term. There is a strong argument for abortion (otherwise it never would've been made legal); you just refuse to see it. And when it is made clear to you, you resort to personal attacks.

Your attempt to appeal to relativism is an excuse. Who did i personally attack?

]Fa||eN[ , the original article you posted was devoid of logic. It didn't even have the pro-choice argument. It was nothing but misinformed rhetoric.

It debunked the erroneous philosophy and logic which people in favor of abortions maskerade as pro-choice. The essay proved that pro-choice is logical fallicy.

What primary natural function do apple trees have? They produce apples.
What primary natural function do apples have? They produce apple trees.


By the same 'logic'(i use the term loosly) you apply to justifying abortion, apples categorecally do not become apple trees simply because they are still in apple form. Your saying that the process of apples becoming trees doesnt exist simply because of a delusional notion of time. The notion that apples dont make apple trees because there apples is ridiculous.

Useing time as an excuse as to why the fetus is not human even though he/she was made by two humans and is being carried by a human has no leg to stand on as with time the fetus will develope completly. It is simply a conjectural interference on time.

 

[Cheli]

Your attempt to appeal to relativism is an excuse. Who did i personally attack?

This wasn't in response to you, but to another poster. Sorry for any confusion.

The essay proved that pro-choice is logical fallicy.

The essay only proved this by starting from a false position.

 

[spanner365]

This argument for abortion, minus the egalitarian rhetoric, goes thus: "Abortion is acceptable because a woman has a right to choose what is right for her and her baby." This is all well and good, except that the key point-a fetus is not a person-is left unproved, and the "right to choose" is thrown into the argument to take its place.

Not to switch topics, but how do you feel about stem cell research? Since, by your own acknowledgement, it cannot be proved that a fetus is a person, wouldn't it be better to alleviate the suffering and save the human life we know for a fact exists?

 

[Chloe Williams]

You know what confuses me the most about abortion is how aborting a "fetus" is legal, but killing a pregnant woman is concidered double murder. Why do you think that is? (<- - - - - -That's not meant to be a sacastic question by the way, and I would especially love to hear some responses from some pro-choice people. )

 

[]RiSeN[]

The essay only proved this by starting from a false position.

The fact that it englobed the entire truth and logic behind the position does not make it a false position. You saying a certain word is an adjective, does not make me wrong for giving you the adjectives meaning.

 

[]RiSeN[]

Not to switch topics, but how do you feel about stem cell research? Since, by your own acknowledgement, it cannot be proved that a fetus is a person, wouldn't it be better to alleviate the suffering and save the human life we know for a fact exists?

Please start a new thread.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

The fact that it englobed the entire truth and logic behind the position does not make it a false position. You saying a certain word is an adjective, does not make me wrong for giving you the adjectives meaning.

The fact is that it did not 'englobe' any truth or logic. It consisted entirely of false premises.

 

[In A Perfect World]

You know what confuses me the most about abortion is how aborting a "fetus" is legal, but killing a pregnant woman is concidered double murder. Why do you think that is? (<- - - - - -That's not meant to be a sacastic question by the way, and I would especially love to hear some responses from some pro-choice people. )

Abortion - the fetus is unwanted and the mother chooses to kill it

Prego murder - the fetus is obviously wanted if it's there and the mother had no choice in saving her baby once someone killed her

not that hard to comprehend.

 

[]RiSeN[]

Abortion - the fetus is unwanted and the mother chooses to kill it

Prego murder - the fetus is obviously wanted if it's there and the mother had no choice in saving her baby once someone killed her

not that hard to comprehend.

You've missed the point entirely. Cloe was pointing out the double standard.

 

[In A Perfect World]

You've missed the point entirely. Cloe was pointing out the double standard.

There is no double standard to point out. They are two different situations.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

You've missed the point entirely. Cloe was pointing out the double standard.

No, YOU missed the point entirely. There is no double standard; the issue is whether or not the fetus was wanted.

 

[]RiSeN[]

There is no double standard to point out. They are two different situations.

Your simply making assumptions to suit your agenda. Killing the pregnant woman and the fetus is double murder even if the mother did not know if she was pregnant. It is also double murder is she was planning on aborting before she got killed. Regardless of her decision to abort or not, if the killer murders her and the fetus, he gets double homocide. The fetus is considered a human life and therefor its murder in the case of the killer, yet if the woman decides to kill the fetus it is magically not murder.

 

[In A Perfect World]

Your simply making assumptions to suit your agenda. Killing the pregnant woman and the fetus is double murder even if the mother did not know if she was pregnant. It is also double murder is she was planning on aborting before she got killed. Regardless of her decision to abort or not, if the killer murders her and the fetus, he gets double homocide. The fetus is considered a human life and therefor its murder in the case of the killer, yet if the woman decides to kill the fetus it is magically not murder.

The fetus is hers. She can kill it if she wants to (may not be morally right though).

If someone kills her, the fetus goes with it. In essence, she was robbed of her child.