Well, it’s a lot better than making something legal/illegal based on a plurality 
(Yeah, I didn’t forgot about the above responses. Just really had to add that in.)
And that’s why I still thank the stars every day that I live in Australia. We might have some whacko nut-jobs who picket abortion clinics with cameras, but no pollie in his/her right mind here would even dare to suggest cutting funding to clinics that provide such services. They’d be laughed out of parliament here.
Seriously.
:rolleyes:
A reversible chemical vasectomy that lasts ten years, huh? Heck, it should be offered free to parents of 14 year-old boys.
Because it’s an irrelevant distraction from my point.
Sure, you can post a link and be selective of which data you choose to use, and I’m free to call you on it , which I’ve done. Once you cite something the available data is available for anyone reference. You don’t get to be selective of what data other posters use. The fact that it’s from your own cite makes it even better.
Like you once again ignored a direct question?
Another select reading of your own cite. I asked you to show me anything which backed up your claim that any polls can constitute proof. You failed.
What it says is that more specific polls repeated on a regular basis are better. What it doesn’t say is that more general polls should be disregarded completely, which is what you did in your selective reading of your own cite.
I didn’t shy away from them. I just showed you the data you had ignored since that was my contention. I also claimed polls were generally regarded as dubious and never as proof. Your most recent cite reinforces that point, but you still can’t bring yourself to admit it.
But there are numerous polls that place your assertion in doubt, which was my point all along.
I acknowledged some time ago that the polls indicate a move toward a more conservative view. You took it to an extreme that the data doesn’t support.
I don’t have to prove anything. YOU made an assertion that you can’t back up. I take those numerous polls I cited as data you ignored {which is true} and a strong indication that your assertion is in doubt. I recognize that as a general moral opinion, the public doesn’t appear to support abortions for career or school, or for financial hardship. Whether they will actually support that as a matter of law and enforce it, is another matter.
You’ve hung on specific polls and the wording to make an assertion that was too strong for you to support. My point from the very beginning was that polls don’t work that way, and now, your own link about polls says I’m right.
. It probably means, harder to obtain than they are now, which would mean , “more restrictions”
What I’ve said all along. That the polls contain conflicting data that has to be interpreted. It’s your assertion that they prove something. They don’t.
Once again. Polls don’t work that way, as I’ve already explained and your own link does as well. There’s an important difference in definition between Less detailed/more detailed, less informative/more informative, and right/wrong.
Were they focusing on the motive for abortion in giving an answer, or the legal/illegal aspect? Does it PROVE, what the public thinks, or is it just a general indicator of attitude? It’s the latter. Just as I’ve said all along.
Once again, you sidestep my actual point that I’ve repeated several times to misrepresent my argument. I haven’t claimed to prove anything. Kindly stop posting this nonsense. I’m aware that polls don’t constitute proof.
You however, have made a claim of proof that you can’t support. Your last attempt supported my claim ABOUT THE NATURE OF POLLS. Not your claim that they are proof.
Here’s a story in USA Today about laws passed in 7 states (and pending in 14 more) to create or expand buffer zones around military funerals, aimed at the Westboro Baptist Church.
Said a Republican state lawmaker in Oregon, Representative Kim Thatcher:
“They can protest away, but it doesn’t have to be in everybody else’s face.”
Thatcher is identified elsewhere as a “pro-life” legislator. I have not heard of her and other “pro-life” lawmakers stating that anti-abortion rights advocates “can protest away, but it doesn’t have to be in everybody else’s face.”
Seems to me that if you tolerate harassment in a clinic setting where vulnerable people are seeking health care, you have to tolerate upsetting people at funerals as well.
I’ve made the point several times that OMGs so called logical conclusions are not actually logically. In post 2670 I got more specific as to why. **OMG ** responded in post 2697.
Ill start with something simple
I asked this question in post 1934
and in response I got this
I asked it again pointing out that the biologically enslaved portion of the argument was ignored, and got essentially the same response, addressing slef awareness, but leaving out the physical enslavement part. This is something Bryan has pointed out repeatedly as well.
OMG addressed one aspect of my question and ignored the other, which was a necessary condition of the question.
Abortion/pregnancy has a unique combination of necessary conditions. Discussions in this thread about Self awareness, bodily autonomy, the value of human life, personhood, etc, can be discussed separately, but you cannot come to logical conclusions by selecting one of the necessary conditions and comparing it to another situation that does not have the necessary conditions.
Arguing that if a lack of self awareness justifies abortion that means you support killing newborns is illogical, because it ignores other necessary conditions of the issue. { a lack of self awareness, and growing inside someone’s body.}
Arguing that using bodily autonomy to justify abortion means you can logically rape and murder others, is illogical for the same reason. In short, the bulk of OMGs
that are claimed to be “logical conclusions” simply aren’t.
The game is to try and separate the the necessary conditions that make up the abortion issue and argue them individually with a superficial appearance of logic.
It’s a fail. It’s not logic.
No, it only has a passing resemblance to a logical argument. !st there’s the issue of degrees of awareness. Is a newborn more aware than a 1st trimester embryo or a fetus with no developed brain?
Then there’s the issue that in this discussion topic, nobody is arguing that a newborn is not a person, or that personhood hinges ONLY on awareness.
Even if that’s so, a lack of logic on their part doesn’t make your argument more logical. My guess is in most cases you’re hanging on semantics to make their argument more absolute than it is if examined.
Again, you’re leaving out one of the necessary conditions of a discussion of abortion, which makes your argument a logical fail.
Haven’t I already? It’s okay to consider imperfect analogies and existing legal and moral precedents. That doesn’t make the abortion issue less unique or complex.
Wouldn’t that be, obviously?
Bodily autonomy comes up in lots of issues. The way in which it comes up in abortion is a unique one.
Here’s another thing you like to do. You assume you’re correct and then set rules by which others are required to argue. If they don’t you win by default. It’s a great way to stroke your ego, but a disingenuous way of arguing.
As I’ve already said, the situation, existing commonly in the lives of citizens and society, requires a decision. It doesn’t guarantee a perfect solution or a permanent one. In the balance of all the combined issues, choice wins, especially before viability. A woman is acting for herself, about her body, which unavoidably affects the embryo, or fetus. In reverse, to insist on the embryo’s right to life, necessarily means the physical enslavement of the woman, against her will. We cannot choose either way without an undesired consequence, and yet we must choose.
According to you, physical enslavement against her will is the better choice. According to the law, the rights of citizens we actually have outweighs the rights of citizens we might have. I happen to agree.
That’s interesting isn’t it? I’d love to see someone use that same argument on her, about anti abortion protesters.
I’m unsure why a clinic can’t file harassment charges for protesters who verbally accost their clients.
As much as I despise the WBC freaks I hate to see buffer zone precedent set. In a couple of towns the locals have dealt with them fairly effectively on their own, outnumbering them and standing between them and the funeral with flags, so nobody had to hear or see them.
If it’s not helpful, then how would you know what I was trying to express and how it would be different from what I said initially?
Well now you’re just ignoring the existence of that child, for whatever reason.
So then why can’t a state demand a woman remain pregnant, even if it’s against her will?
So then all of this other stuff you’ve been going on about is irrelevant and the entire issue is one about bodily autonomy? I mean, I’ve known this for a long time, and have stated as much, but I just felt the need to state it one more time since you made it so obvious. Also, I must say that you are quite the communist to even consider banning abortion as a matter of the survival of Canada as a nation. Who knew?
(I did!)
Well, one, the law can be, and usually is, based on simply scientific facts. Usually. Two, this isn’t a quirk in the law. It’s a contradiction. The unborn aren’t considered persons under the law yet they’re considered persons under the law. How does that work? They either are or aren’t, either in which case abortion is illegal or causing the death of an unborn child is neither manslaughter, homicide nor murder. You can’t have it both ways.
I don’t care if you find it a satisfactory answer. It’s not a satisfactory answer. It’s, at best, a self-evident statement made in the absense of a justification and, at worst, a circular argument. It’s seriously akin to me arguing that the Bible is true because the Bible is true. It’s not going to fly and you refusing to justify it just shows how weak your own argument is.
I believe I said this before, but this is not a fundamental disagreement. This is an instance of you refusing-- and I do mean absolutely refusing-- to justify your position. This is your argument in a nutshell: “A woman should be allowed to have an abortion because it’s her body, and because the rights over one’s body are important, then she should be allowed to have an abortion”. That is a complete NON-ANSWER and it doesn’t even give the guise of being anything other than a non-answer. What makes it even worse is that you, just above, admit that the government can do violate one’s right to bodily autonomy which, if true, really begs for you to justify why it being the woman’s body as it relates to abortion is important. But I’ve asked this question of you many times, and each time I’m met with just about as much of a non-answer as I was prior. I mean, really. What is that? How not to debate 101?
So your argument is now based on the number of women who do something every year? Are you arguing that the more people who engage in an action per year, the less ridiculous arguments for making that action legal are? If that’s the route we’re going, then I’d be willing to bet that, every year, there are far more thefts than there are abortions. Would you thusly judge the ridiculousness of arguing that theft should be legal based on the number of thefts that occur per year? Since millions of people engage in it.
In as much as I would argue that the millions of aforementioned thieves can’t be trusted, yes.
So the reason I’ve yet to see any pro-choicer argue that the unborn should be allowed to use the woman’s body is because pro-choicers don’t make that claim? Wouldn’t that-- you know-- explain why I haven’t seen pro-choicers make that claim?
…Yeah. QED.
But remember, pregnancy is a unique situation and, as a result, cannot be compared to other situations
(Or does that argument only apply in the case of abortion?)
How can abortion be a civil rights issue when you deny the child the right to live? That doesn’t make much sense. Merely claiming it’s a civil rights issue doesn’t make it as such.
Let me explain it to you then. I’m now a woman. I’ve given birth to two children. I’m here arguing as I have been. What are you going to say? Are you going to give me the whole “well, you don’t know what you’re talking about because you’ve never been pregnant!” line? Are you going to argue that because I’ve given birth to two children that my arguments holds more weight than if I hadn’t? What are you going to do? If nothing will change, then there’s no point in you trying to act as if I’m “discounting” pregnancy.
There’s nothing weak about my arugments. Perhaps you should examine your own, since you’ve already admitted that you’re content to treat your own assertions as self-evident thusly needing no kind of backing to them. You can’t argue with someone who from the outset refuses to justify his position. Oh well. It’s still infinitely fun to point this out.
This is actually not true. It depends on the size of the population. If it’s a large group, then what you say would be true. However, it’s simply not true in this instance because the number of people who have survived abortions is actually relatively small. Quite small, in fact. So small, that virtually all cases of one surviving an abortion are well-documented. So yes, none. Pro-choice groups would be all over someone who survived an abortion who spoke in favor of abortion. Or maybe they wouldn’t, because that’d just be weird…
No. It’s easy to be in the latter group because, as you’ve evidenced, you’re far more likely to say what should have been done or what should be done if you were never done to, but it’s a lot harder to support that thing if it was done to you and you survived it.
So let me get this straight. You’re putting people who think they should have been aborted into the same group as people whose mother’s actually tried to abort them? REALLY? Because, well, if you’re treaing the two the same, I would have to question just your honesty. Either that, or I would have to question your reading skills.
I will continue to point out that you’re not making any argument. You’re back to the “inside the body” thing, which you’ve yet to justify or to explain why is important. It’s a disingenuous way to argue, to put it mildly. You cannot say that being “inside the body” matters, yet when people ask you why it matters either fail to explain why it matters or just state “Because it does”.
Excuse me? If I were to murder some hobo with no family and no friends, that doesn’t undermine society. Hell, if someone wanted to be a utilitarian, they could possibly argue that I increased utility be decreased depending on the system. It does, however, harm that individual, which is why murder is illegal. The effect on society is irrelevant. And as you seemingly agree that abortion causes the unborn to be an immediate victim, then it shouldn’t be legal.
Errr, no. For example, let’s say I were to break this forums rules and use a gay slur against you. If my actions could be rationalized by myself, then I wouldn’t get in trouble for using a gay slur as the fact that I found it okay would mean that it was okay. However, they would not be deemed. I have to abide by the rules of this forum and can only operate within those set guidelines. It’s not a hard concept to understand, and I know I’ve explained this before, so I don’t see why you don’t.
We’ll get to this below, because you’re operating under a few incorrect assumptions.
No, it’s called a veil of ignorance. Granted, we’re assuming either “always legal” or “never legal” in this instance, but it helps is showing that the action of abortion is either generally morally right or morally wrong. And by your refusal to accept it, I see you view it as morally wrong.
It’ll remain the norm until there’s an open debate about abortion in Canada. Either that or until all those little Canadian girls who idolize Justin Beiber grow up and adopt his points of view. So… However long that is.
A slave, by virtue of being a slave, is being considered to have no rights. That was the stipulation here. As a result, you cannot say that allowing someone to own a slave to be worse than not owning a slave, since disallowing them from owning a slave would result in fewer net freedoms than would allowing him to own a slave.
The ability to use the mother’s body whereas the others cannot. After all, you cannot say that pregnancy is a unique situation yet treat the unborn like you would a born individual who uses the woman’s body.
That’s not what I’m asking. You said pregnancy should be given special considerations, yes? If so, then why do you not afford the unborn special considerations that the born do not get, instead choosing to treat it like everyone else. In this way, you’re not arguing that pregnancy is a unique situation, but just abortion.
Well, unlike you, I realize that SCOTUS is often times wrong in their conclusions. A brief look at history will tell you this. Do you think SCOTUS is always right? Furthermore, it’s not self-serving. Murder is not murder based on where the individual is killed, but rather the circumstances surrounding his or her death. To say killing someone a minute before they’re born is not murder but a minute afterwards it is, when both were done for the same reasons, is nonsensical and irrational. Yet, in practice, this is what the law says.
Well that’s just untrue.
None of this is true, precisely because abortion and adoption aren’t considered to be substitutes. That is, women don’t abort babies they’d otherwise adopt out. I believe I said this before.
So no, you won’t get an influx of children put up for adoption, much to your consternation. This is precisely what I mean when I continue to say that your assertions simply aren’t born out of evidence and, frankly, border on (baseless) fearmongering.
So let me make sure I understand this correctly. Your proof for the assertion that making abortion illegal would increase poverty is the fact that 23% of women who obtain an abortion do so for a given reason? Really? You know, I was expecting something that-- you know-- looked at the poverty rate, say, post-Roe vs. pre-Roe, and performed some kind of statistical analysis to view whether or not the Roe decision had an effect on the poverty rate. Because, you know, that would be proof. But I’ve asked for such a thing many times now and you’ve failed to produce, so I can only surmise that you can’t produce it.
…And could you at least work on your straw men?
Such as? Notice we keep going in this circle. You say there are negatives, I ask what those negatives you, you tell me what you think they are, I ask for some kind of empirical evidence which would leave one to accept what you say as plausible and you provide none. I mean, really. As the saying goes “put up or shut up”. As it is, since you’re unwilling to put up, then you should at least shut up about this “negatives that outweigh them” line.
So before you tried to cry foul about slippery slopes, yet here you’re creating a slippery slop even slipperier (is that even a word?) than the one I created? I figure your example would be more apt if, you know, you were going to compare two similar bans (again, few in the U.S. want to ban abortion in its entirety) and to another developed country, instead of to a developing one, which is languishing far behind when it comes to medical technology.
Which is why abortion on demand isn’t exactly the progressive idea
I can vaguely picture some kind of Children of Men-type scenario where an epidemic of some kind causes fertility rates to drop to near-zero. I’d expect quite a few civil rights to get suspended under such conditions.
[/quote]
You don’t have to get to zero; you just have to get below the replacement rate and have your levels of immigration taper off. Since that’s what will happen in Canada in a few decades time, then it’s nice to know you’ll support restrictions on abortion then. A shame it would take such drastic measures, but I’m not one to complain.
Unfortunately, it cannot.
It’s a very good question. How can you argue that X should form the basis of policy Y if, by your own admission, X can be deemed to be irrelevant in certain cases? Why couldn’t this be one of those instances in which X is irrelevant?
And how does it undermine my credibility?
I just thought I’d made use of the line of arguing you do.
Of course, the stipulation was that you had to choose one. I don’t know why you refuse to answer it. I know what I’d choose-- to be “forced” to remain pregnant. What about you?
So something you brought up would be an irrelevant distraction from your point? Then **WHY DID YOU BRING IT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE?
I’ll just quote this.
We can go at this all day.
I made a claim-- a specific claim. I said that Americans would leave abortions legal in the ‘hard’ cases (rape, incest, maternal health, fetal defects) and ban all the rest of abortions. You said that claim was false. I gave you polls in which Americans were asked specific instances in which abortion should be legal or illegal. You told me I was being selective. I asked you for proof to the contrary. You haven’t (no, you haven’t), because you can’t. It’s that simple.
You see, it would be fairly easy to prove my statement wrong. All you would have to do would be to find a specific poll which laid out specific circumstances by which abortion should be legal or illegal, and find the one which says that abortions outside of the hard cases should be legal. That would be a five minute search, if that. However-- and here’s the thing-- no such poll exists, which is why you’ve yet to produce one. You could search all day every day looking for a poll which explicitly says, “When Americans were asked whether or not a woman should be allowed to have an abortion because she could not afford a child, Americans were in favor of it by <enter margin here>” yet you would not find it. On the other hand, within three minutes I could find you a poll where, when that specific question was asked, the majority of respondents said no. In fact, I already did.
I’m not so sure how you claim my claim is false when I can provide, yet you cannot provide evidence to the contrary. It really boggles the mind when you say I can’t prove my assertion, yet I can and have pointed to specific polls which say exactly what I’m saying yet you cannot point to any which would prove me wrong. You see, being able to find a general poll with generalized responses does not constitute proving my assertion false. Proving my assertion false would be showing that another poll, which asked the same question, came to a vastly different conclusion.
For example, when I pointed out to you that Americans tend to support parental consent laws for minors you claimed that there is an incongruency between polls because other polls only show that “40% of Americans want to make abortions harder”. But guess what? That’s not conflicting data. Conflicting data would be poll one asking whether or not minors should need the consent of their parents to obtain an abortion obtaining 70% in favor of and poll two asking whether or not minors should need the consent of their parents to obtain an abortion obtaining 40% in favor. That would be a conflict, as when given the same restriction, they come at two entirely different outcomes. No, what we have here is you trying to compare a poll with a very generalized question versus a poll in which a specific instance or circumstance is presented. The general poll is open to interpretation; the other poll is not. Notice that when I asked you what “harder” entails, you couldn’t tell me and just flatly ignored it. In fact, that’s what you’ve been doing for a long ass time.
Because you cannot provide evidence to the contrary of what I’ve provided, you’ve instead decided that you’re going to look for generalized questions on abortion and extrapolate to mean that I’m wrong, even though you, yourself, cannot define for me what the parameters contained in the generalized questions are. For example, you keep referencing the 2009 NBC News poll as a way to show I’m wrong. When I asked you what “between a woman and her doctor” mean you keep saying “more than the other categories”. But that’s not a response. When I, for example, pointed out that few people would believe that a woman should be able to have an abortion because she doesn’t like the sex of her baby even though that would be a decision “between a woman and her doctor”, you ignored it. When I pointed out that the “between a woman and her doctor” category would also include instances where the mother’s health is at stake or fetal defects, which are hard cases, it would take away from that category and add to the middle category. When I said that “between a woman and her doctor” is a nebulous statement, and thusly needs to be defined with specific parameters so as to see when American believe abortion should be “between a woman and her doctor” and when it shouldn’t, you ignored it. Funny that.
You have this odd way of arguing. You try to claim someone is wrong when they’re not. You refuse to do what others ask of you. And when someone makes a point you don’t like or can’t respond to, you ignore it. Yeah. Funny how that works. Now please feel free to ignore this one as well.
Oh, here we go.
Yeah… Much to your consternation, I really didn’t ignore anything. To quote myself from post #2,697:
This went ignored, though I won’t make too much out of that. Since your response has been, essentially, “No, no, no! My argument is REALLY complicated and doesn’t just hinge on bodily autonomy!”, I decided to focus on on whether or not those other things you claimed were really important to your argument, in this case self-determination. Based on your argument, we can derive four conclusions.
(1) A fetus incapable of self-determination can be aborted because it is inside of the woman’s body.
(2) A fetus capable of self-determination can be aborted because it is inside of the woman’s body.
(3) A newborn incapable of self-determination cannot be thrown into the Hudson even though it’s not inside of the woman’s body.
(4) A newborn capable of self-determination cannot be thrown into the Hudson.
(If you disagree with any of the above four, let me know.)
Note that the permissibility of killing the unborn and/or newborn is not affected by by the unborn’s/newborn’s ability to exercise self-determination, but rather its location relative to the woman’s body. For example, the ability of the unborn child in situation two to exercise self-determination does not grant it protections the unborn child in situation one lacks. Similarly, the newborn child in situation three is not granted fewer protections than the newborn child in situation four, even though its incapable of exercising self-determination. As this is true, then self-determination does not play a critical role in your argument. Rather, your argument hinges entirely on location of the child relative to the woman’s body. The very thing, mind you, I’ve said many, many, many times before and the very thing you somehow reject.
(Oh, but you’ll try to come up with some convoluted response, I’m sure!)
Oh, and trying to piggyback off of Bryan just isn’t going to work, not that it ever has.
No, it wasn’t a necessary condition of your question. It’s the basis of your ENTIRE ARGUMENT, which I’ve pointed out no less than twenty times in this thread alone.
Not only is that a convoluted mess of mumbo-jumbo, and not only would it fly in the face of virtually every defense of abortion ever concocted, especially the bold, your “necessary conditions”, whatever that means, aren’t all necessary and cannot all be held to be important simultaneously. I’ll respond to this below.
It’s a good thing no one argued this, isn’t it? What was argued is that if you believe awareness is important to being a person and that everyone is entitled to their own definition of personhood and is entitled to act according to those beliefs, then you would be justified in killing newborns.
This is the downright dumbest thing you’ve ever written out and that I’ve had the displeasure of reading. But I’ll play along. “Necessary conditions”? What the fuck are those? Actually, I don’t care because you just made that shit up. Generally speaking, the pro-choice argument will boil down to one of two forms:
(A) The woman has a right to control her own body.
(B) The woman has a right to control her own body up until viability.
The first argument can generally be divided ito the following two statements:
(1) The fetus is not a person, and as a result has no right to not be killed.
(2) The fetus is a person, yet it does not have the right to use the woman’s body against her will.
The second argument can generallybe divided into the following three statements:
(1) Before viability, the fetus cannot be deemed an independent life since it cannot live independently of the mother.
(2) Before viability, the fetus is non-sentient, and sentience is integral to being a person.
(3) No one knows when life begins, and as a result viability if the best compromise at where abortion should be undefined.
Now to tackle those arguments individually:
(A1) I made this point before, but in what ways does a woman have the right to control her own body? Are you saying that she can do to her body as she sees fit? What about with her body? What if allowing her to act in any specific manner would bring harm upon another? If the argument is that a woman can do to and with her body so long as she sees fit and as long as it does not bring harm upon another, then this distinction should also hold true in regards to pregnancy. If, for example, one would argue that a woman should be allowed to down a 40 oz. a day within the confines of her home because such an activity does harms no one aside from her then, to be consistent, they would necessarily have to argue that a woman be disallowed from downing a 40 oz. a day because it can potentially harm her unborn child. On the flip side, if you are arguing that a woman can act in a manner she chooses regardless of the effect is has on another, as usually happens when it comes to abortion, then to be consistent you would necessarily have to argue that rape and murder are perfectly acceptable activities, even though these activities harm a third party. The only way to argue it permissible to act against the unborn regardless of the effect it has on them without also applying this logic to someone who is born is to assume that someone who is born has a right to not be acted against while the unborn does not, thus leading to the question of who is a person under the law and who is not. This will be dealt with a little later.
(A2) Even if the unborn, by virtue of being a person, has no right to use a woman’s body, they do-- at the very least-- have the right to not be acted against. If this is the case, and it would be by virtue of the unborn being persons under the law, then abortion is impermissible for no person can arbitrarily be deprived of his or her life without, at least in the U.S., due process/equal protection of the law. Thusly, this is not a valid argument without redefining what it means to legally be a person.
(B1) Does this mean with or without medical technology? I’m going to assume it means with medical technology. If that is the case, then as medical technology advances forward and viability is reached earlier in pregnancy, then the time limit in which abortion is allowed is also shortened. If, for example, medical technology pushes viability back to 20 weeks then abortions, then using viability as the point at which abortions become illegal, abortions would be illegal at 20 weeks. If medical technology pushes viability back to 15 weeks, then abortions become illegal at 15 weeks. If that viability is pushed back to 10 weeks, then abortions become impermissible at ten weeks. If viability is pushed back to an hour after the conclusion of fertilization, then abortions become impermissible an hour after fertilization. In the end, you would have to agree that as medical technology advances and the unborn has less of a need to use the woman’s body that it has more of a right to do so, though I’m fairly sure you’ll wholeheartedly disagree with such an assertion.
(B2) Assuming this as true, then if someone loses sentience do they become a non-person? Are individuals who are asleep non-persons? Are individuals who are in a coma non-persons? Are individuals under the effects of anaesthetics non-persons? Unless you agree that said states cause one to lose their status as a person under the law, then you are not being consistent in your application sentience as a determining factor in whether or not one is a person as instead of applying it to everyone equally, you will only apply it to the unborn. Of course, that’s the inherent problem with using sentience-- or even things such as awareness or any other such philosophical concept-- to define personhood. Their very natures also require you to define some born human out of rights. Now you could argue that the difference between those individuals and the unborn is that they have been sentient in the past whereas the unborn have never been sentient, but the inevitable question is why is that important? Rights are granted not on past status, but rather on present status and reasonable expectations for the future. If, for example, some thoroughly non-sentient born individual in still considered to be a person because we know that they’ll be sentient in the future, then under what basis shouldn’t the unborn also be considered a person under the law (that is, they might not be sentient today but we know they’ll be sentient tomorrow)? Fundamentally the two are no different. You’re going to have a hell of a time trying to rationalize one without also rationalizing the other.
(B3) This one is just ignorance run amok. A simple glance at an embryology or biology textbook will tell we know very well when the life of a human begins.
Now your inevitable response to this? Quite possibly something about it being the woman’s body which, you know, will be a total non-answer plus a good example of begging the question. But hey-- you have no logical arguments in defense of abortion, so you have to try your best to avoid any argument that’s just too hard for you to answer. Unfortunately, that seems to be all of them.
This statement is proof you don’t understand what a logical argument is. As long as the conclusion derives from the premises, it’s a perfectly valid logical argument. Again, you wouldn’t know what a logical argument is if it held a big flashing neon sign with said “I’m a logical argument!”.
So you’re redefining someone else’s argument to include degrees of awareness, which the original argument did not mention? Wouldn’t that be a-- you know?-- straw man? Why, yes. I think it would be.
No, rather individuals have been arguing that no one should have a definition of personhood forced upon them that they, themselves, do not consider true. Which, you know, if true, means that one can define a newborn as a non-person.
Again, with this utterly laughable statement. Either you’re living in your own world of your own fashioning, or you’re flat ignorant and/or lying. The internet is literally rife with pro-life answers to pro-choice arguments, there are literally hundreds of books written detailing common pro-choice arguments and virtually any ethics class on a college campus will deal with abortion and present the arguments in favor of abortion and their rebuttals.
I just think you’re using the “necessary condition” line because you don’t know what else to write. I can’t blame you, though. If my position were as weak as yours, I’d come up with some nonsense, too. Logical fail, indeed.
There’s nothing complex about abortion. It’s actually quite simple.
According to you, there is no other situation outside of pregnancy where a woman can be biologically enslaved or forced to give up her body to sustain another. As a result, much the same way a woman isn’t required to give up her body to sustain another in any other situation, she shouldn’t be required to give up her body to sustain the unborn. Also, according to you, pregnancy is a unique situation, cannot be compared to anything else and is deserving of its own rules and considerations. But if, as you say, pregnancy is a unique situation and cannot be compared to anything else, then whether or not someone else who is not the cause of a pregnancy can use the pregnant’s woman body is irrelevant, and the fact that a woman doesn’t have to give up her body to sustain them is also irrelevant. If pregnancy is deserving of its own rules and considerations, then whereas a woman could refuse to provide for, or even continue to provide for, one of those other individuals, the unborn can demand of her what those individuals cannot as pregnancy is a unique situation and is non-comparable to something else. Therefore, abortion is impermissible. QED. Thanks for playing.
You might lack this ability and all, but I’m able to examine arguments people use and, based on the way they argue, take them to their logical conclusion. You don’t like it? Then find better arguments. It’s not me “winning by default”. It’s me winning by virtue of you having no argument, or at least not one you’re willing to defend.
This is a lot of nothing. People are commonly forced to do those things they’d rather not do. We err on the side of life. It’s pretty simple. Though, I did find it funny you said something about erring on the side of choice, especially before viability. Oh, I wonder how you’ll square that with one of my above responses.
…Oh wait. I know how. You’ll ignore it, as you usually do.
Some states do, since they’re okay with oppressing women.
Yes. Other issues are irrelevant. I discuss them when you bring them up, to explain their irrelevance.
It’s law, not science. It can be as contradictory as the humans writing it make it.
So you say.
States where women don’t have this control are worse off in many ways than states where women do.
The state must have a compelling reason to violate an individual’s right to bodily autonomy. What is this reason as regards to abortion?
I see this kind of individual liberty as a fundamental value of a liberal democracy, myself. Others may disagree.
No, I’m just trying to inject a note of reality to contrast with your empty claims. I’m not pro-choice because of some hypothetical untested idealism. Reality guided my views. Try it sometime.
Harm to society of theft - measurable. Harm to society of abortion - nil. The numbers are significant only to demonstrate that you have no idea of or regard for the consequences of what you propose, clinging instead to some naive notion that more babies in and of itself is a worthy goal.
Name a non-abortion situation. Maybe we can discuss it.
Because I’ve calculated the women’s freedom is more important than the fetus’s life.
Yes, please do.
Your pro-life arguments carry no additional weight because of your gender or parenting. I admit I’d be a little surprised if a woman who’d had two children would describe an unwanted pregnancy in terms of “convenience”. I might write her off as some kind of self-centered nut if she said or implied things like “my pregnancies were easy, therefore pregnancy is easy for all women and thus no woman should have the right to an abortion just for her own convenience.”
Well, there’s only so many times I can add one to one to get two before I start accepting this as obvious.
Just out of curiosity, if I lost interest in the thread, would you consider that evidence of victory?
[quote]
This is actually not true. It depends on the size of the population. If it’s a large group, then what you say would be true. However, it’s simply not true in this instance because the number of people who have survived abortions is actually relatively small. Quite small, in fact. So small, that virtually all cases of one surviving an abortion are well-documented. So yes, none. Pro-choice groups would be all over someone who survived an abortion who spoke in favor of abortion. Or maybe they wouldn’t, because that’d just be weird…
[/quote
Well, I presume the person would be speaking in favour of legal access to abortion, not abortion per se. But I’ll take your word for it that the group is small and unanimous, because I don’t care.
So it’s harder. Big deal. I’m not entertaining any more arguments relating to the opinions of abortion survivors, barring being given some reason I should.
If something unwanted is inside my body, I want the right to remove it. I’m not self-centered - I want you to have that right, too. And everyone else.
It’s not the only reason it’s illegal, but okay.
You argument hinges on hobos being worthless? Well, I’ve already said I figure birth is the optimal demarcation point, and I think it’s safe to presume that even a hobo has relatives (or at least you wouldn’t know he doesn’t until after starting to investigate) and that someone willing to murder a hobo will probably murder again. I don’t see the corresponding threat or significance in a woman getting an abortion.
Well, for starters, I’d think it was funny.
Because the power of the administrators of this board who kick people who violate their rules is not the merest fraction of the power of the state who can arrest and imprison people who violate its laws. Further, being deprived of a guest membership on a message board is not the merest fraction of the hardship of an unwanted pregnancy. It’s a comically feeble analogy.
In any case, you’re obviously aware of the rules of the message board. If you use a slur, it could only be with the willful disregard of these rules - hardly a rational act.
Actually, I view abortion as morally neutral. Protecting legal access to abortion is morally right. And, fine, under the terms of the veil of ignorance, I have to assume that if all roles were random and I couldn’t know if I was about to be an abort-er or an abort-ee…
Well, my position remains unchanged. If I was the abort-ee, I wouldn’t know it, anyway. You’d be talking to someone else.
There’s no restriction - any Canadian who wants to openly debate abortion can (or at least they should be - I’m a tad dismayed by the accounts of the hassled university students, but I don’t take this as a sign of general suppression).
It was? Rather, I think I was questioning how the slave became a slave, as this represents a loss of rights. Are you assuming this hypothetical is taking place in a state that practices legal slavery and has for quite some time?
If that’s the case, my priorities would be to maximize individual rights by ending slavery and legalizing abortion.
Sure I can. You just don’t or won’t get my point because you refuse to recognize the aspect of pregnancy that makes it unique. I suppose we could construct a pregnancy simulation with a born person fulfilling the role of the fetus - his body surgically joined to hers, she forced to carry him around for months at a time… I recognize her right to end the simulation at any time, regardless of what happens to the born person as a result.
What special considerations for the unborn did you have in mind? And I don’t understand your last sentence.
No, but in Roe they made the right decision. Dred Scott, not so much.
Location is a circumstance.
Sure, I guess… so what? The line has to be somewhere. If it’s at 24 weeks, using an estimate of viability as the guide, then a minute before that line it’s not murder and a minute after it… well… is, I guess, if the law’s written that way.
Well, if not, we’ll get an influx of poor women stuck with children they can’t afford. I’d find it stupid, rather than consternating.
Forcing unwanted pregnancies to term increases the number of unwanted children. Anyone who is afraid of such an obvious fact is an idiot.
In fact, I throw the question open to anyone reading the thread. Are my posts scary? Is anyone scared?
Hey, it’s a fact you provided. Of that 23% (representing, what, 200,000 American woman a year?), it’s safe to assume to some of them are poor, and if they have children they already think they can’t afford, their likelihood of escaping poverty decreases. Personally, I’d count this as an increase in poverty, but no matter.
Surmise away, knock yourself out.
Nope. I’ll continue discussing the subject until the thread dies or I lose interest. I think I’ve argued my case sufficiently and demolished yours sufficiently. Yay, me.
What, supplying evidence that banning abortion creates problems is a slippery slope, now? That banning abortion would take away a right American woman have enjoyed since 1973 (or longer, in some states) is a slippery slope?
Well, let’s keep an eye on South Dakota, then, shall we?
I gather you think the birthrate in Canada represents some kind of trump card. This is only possible if you ignore the dismissal I gave of the idea when it was first brought up, some time back.
I’m doing okay. No sense of doubt or nagging feelings of self-deception in what I’m saying, no forced mental shortcuts to avoid inconvenient facts.
By not using X as a basis for Y in those cases.
I’ve seen you try to argue so… unconvincingly, disingenuously, prevaricatingly, with forced attempts at humour and with ultimately little effect.
Well, on me, anyway. I suppose there are some lurkers who might find your arguments more persuasive than mine. I can only hope my sympathetic lurkers equal or outnumber yours.
A woman dies because of the ban you propose, you shrug it off… casualties of war, I guess.
By asking me to prove the obvious?
I did answer it. But, fine I’ll play along and pick one of the two choices. Yes, I’d rather be forced to remain pregnant than dead. And I’d consider the society forcing this upon me to be evil, to be changed, discarded, updated and, if need be, some of the rulers will have to be made dead, if they cannot be removed.
And since I consider myself a moral man, I have no interest in forcing this kind of decision on anyone else. It would be a massively immoral thing to do, to only become thinkable in exceptionally dire (and purely hypothetical) circumstances, and your imbecilic smirking aside, Canada is not in nor approaching these circumstances. On this issue, and indeed several others, Canada is a better nation than yours, and a far better nation than the one you want to create.
Right. As I pointed out a few posts ago. Pregnancy is common enough that this choice has to be made and the line drawn. The consequence of choosing either way can be seen as a negative. Abortion, the ending of a life or potential life depending on your view, or legalizing the physical enslavement of women by taking away choice.
Considering the consequences of both choices it sure seems choice is the better option.
It should be noted that choice results in very few “babies murdered” in the 3rd trimester except in those hard cases that OMG claims to be okay with.
Indeed. Ninth-month purely-elective abortions have been legal in Canada for quite some time, but I’m not aware of any actually taking place. It’s perfectly conceivable to me (probably quite likely, actually) that a woman in the final and most uncomfortable stages of pregnancy might demand an abortion, but I’m okay with trusting doctors to recognize she’s under duress and not do something she’ll later regret.
Let’s be honest and accurate about what was said by whom. You made a claim and indicated that your citing of polls PROVED it was a fact. You claimed it was PROOF several times. I called your polls dubious and explained that it is a generally understood principle that polls are unreliable as PROOF. That’s a very significant difference from what you just said.
If your claim had been that the polls are EVIDENCE, that your assertions COULD POSSIBLY be true, then I would agree. I happen to disagree with your reading of the poll data but that’s a matter of personal opinion, not established fact. There’s a very significant difference between those two things. My specific complaint was your assertion that the polls PROVE anything. They do not I’ve asked you to provide any credible source that describes poll data as the kind of evidence that constitutes proof. You’ve failed. Your recent link on polls supports what I’ve stated all along. POlls are generally considered unreliable and should be regarded with skepticism. Some may be better than others, but none constitute proof.
Once again, in maintaining you’re “I’m right no matter what” view you’re ignoring the very significant difference between evidence and proof. On this board when you make a claim YOU are required to provide evidence and/or proof. I’m not required to prove something wrong that you haven’t proved to begin with.
I claimed your own links showed polls that were contrary to your assertions and you had ignored them. I showed poll after poll that demonstrated that. Your response is to refuse to acknowledge them and demand specific polls and a basic attitude that your specific polls count and the more general ones don’t count at all. That has nothing to do with either of my claims. You don’t get to stipulate what kind of evidence is allowed from a link you provided.
You’ve denied the accepted nature of polls and how they work. Are more specific polls generally considered more reliable? Sure. Are general polls completely dismissed. No. Especially when you have quite a number of them indicating a certain trend.
To recap; I made two claims.
Polls are unreliable data subject to interpretation, and do not constitute proof. That has been demonstrated to be true , even by your own link. You have claimed repeatedly that the select polls you cited were proof and failed to provide any evidence that polls can constitute proof of anything. The point, is the NATURE OF POLLS, not the data within.
I claimed the polls you linked to contained some data that seemed to contradict {not prove} the ones you selected. I’ve established that as true as well. Your contention seems to be that , “those don’t count because they’re to general” If you personally reject the general polls that’s your privilege. That doesn’t mean my claim is incorrect. Since polls are subject to interpretation I’m not interested in a lengthy discussion on the poll data. It’s sufficient to say that we disagree on the interpretation of the overall data.
The more significant point is the NATURE of polls, and the accepted fact that they do not constitute proof. You made the specific claim they do, and have failed to back that claim. All the provided evidence, including yours supports what I’ve said all along.
That’s all I have time for this morning. I’ll address the rest tonight or tomorrow.
My claim is that you haven’t proven your assertion because polls do not constitute proof. That’s true, and you haven’t shown otherwise. My claim is that the many general polls I provided from your own cite, casts doubt on your assertion being factual. That’s also true regardless of your personal attitude about general polls.
I only have to show the claims I actually made are correct, not ones I never made. I never claimed the polls proved anything one way or the other.
I don’t have to prove you wrong on an assertion you never proved right to begin with.
I think you’re confused about what I was responding to. I quoted several polls showing that the majority wanted abortions to be easier or stay the same. {rather than more restrictions} when you asked what “harder to obtain” means I responded in post 2785.
those polls appear to indicate people don’t want abortions to be harder to obtain, and it’s reasonable to think pro-life advocates do want them harder to obtain {more restrictions} than they are now. In fact recent activity in state laws being pushed or passed shows that’s true.
Within the context of that question it certainly is. More general polls have implications based on the context of the question and the choices given.
When your hard case restrictions are one choice and between a woman and her doctor the ONLY OTHER CHOICE, then we don’t have to know exactly what that means to know the hard case restrictions WEREN’T CHOSEN. We can safely assume that to those questioned in that specific poll, it obviously meant something more liberal, with less restrictions.
You can’t go outside that polling group to another poll of a different group, to discover the specifics of what that meant to the people in the original group. Your implication is that if we do we discover that the two choices were essentially the same thing is nonsensical.
I repeat, because you stubbornly miss the point post after post, I AM NOT, claiming those general polls PROVE ANYTHING.{since I already knew polls do not} I am pointing out that the data puts your assertion in doubt, and demonstrating that data from your own cites contradict your assertion. You claiming general less specific polls don’t count, is just you making up your own rules. You don’t get to do that.
Wrong. It’s not isolated to my argument. The issue of abortion combines certain necessary conditions. To create analogies that ignore one or more of the necessary conditions is illogical. Pretty much all your arguments do that.
For example, if the discussion was about bachelors, the necessary conditions might be unmarried, male, over 18. If your argument leaves out one of the three necessary conditions then it becomes illogical. If you try to make a point using a male over 18 who is married, your argument is illogical because you’ve ignored one of the necessary conditions. At that point it doesn’t matter if you call it a “logical conclusion” It isn’t , and actual logic says so.
Capitol letters won’t make that true. When the topic is abortion, the necessary conditions are in play. In order for your arguments to be the “logical conclusions” you claim they are you cannot ignore the necessary conditions, and that’s exactly what you’ve done.
People may discuss the individual elements but because the topic is abortion all the necessary conditions are linked.
Because of that I’ve ignored your regurgitation of the self determination argument.
We were talking about logic remember.
We were talking about logic remember.
No. While the conditions may be discussed separately and imperfect analogies might apply to varying degrees, you cannot come to any “logical conclusions”
arguing them separately and ignoring necessary conditions in the process.
So the self awareness of a newborn vs a fetus can’t work because you’re discussing one condition {self awareness} while leaving out another condition, {one growing inside the other} which is necessary to the abortion issue.
So the bodily autonomy issue of a pregnant woman , vs rape or murder, also fails the logic test for a similar reason.
No it isn’t and I’ve demonstrated it using a principle of logic. Often things can have the superficial appearance of logic and still be a logical fallacy. That’s what you’ve constructed for yourself.
We might also look at the fallacies of Affirming the consequent, or Denying the antecedent, but I think Necessary Conditions displays your failings well enough.
No, that isn’t a strawman. I merely pointed out something relevant, rather than rewording and misrepresenting it as your argument. Another example of your misunderstanding of logic.
bullshit. The topic has always been abortion , so discussing personhood falls within the parameters of abortion , in which the personhood of an embryo or fetus is not clearly or universally recognized by law or society in general. The rights of a newborn as a citizen, thus a person, are clearly established by law and by tradition. Your comparison is illogical for exactly the reason I’ve explained. Necessary Conditions.
I have no idea what you think this means or how it’s a relevant point.
“I like their arguments better” is not a compelling point.
bolding mine
I could point out what a convoluted illogical mess this is but instead I’ll play your game of “taking things to their logical conclusions”
look at the bolded section , and we’ll assume that’s a logical conclusion.
The unborn can demand of her, and when and if they do, we can consider their demands. The fact is the unborn are NOT making the demands , but those other individuals, the ones in the pro life movement, are making demands. According to your own so called logic here, they don’t get to do that. If the woman has a right to refuse the demands of those physically in need of her biologically, she certainly has the right to deny the demands of those who want to impose their morals on her. Just taking things to their logical conclusion and all.
You’re able to fool yourself based on you’re need to be right no matter what, that your conclusions are logical. According to actual logic they are not. You can assert how correct you are over and over , but the principles of logic are not putty for your ego to distort.
I’m just gonna’ snip a helluva’ lot of backtracking.
No, you haven’t. And simply repeating how true you are won’t make you true.
Hah, no. How many times do I have to explain this to you?
I’m beginning to think that your grasp on the English language rivals that of a second grader. Here’s a question for you: What’s less than “always” and greater than “rape, incest and life of women”? Well, quite possibly “rape, incest, health of mother, life of mother and severe fetal defects” which I’ve pointed out many times before constitute the ‘hard’ cases. Now prove to me that “between a woman and her doctor” entails more than that.
…Oh wait. You can’t. In fact, per your own admission, you don’t know what “between a woman and her doctor” means and what it entails. You can only assume. For all you know, “between a woman and her doctor” could also contain, say, 10% who believe that abortions should be allowed in cases where there’s a danger to her health and severe fetal defects, who would otherwise side with the “rape, incest and life only” folks if it were defined that way. Of course, you totally discount that notion because it’s, apparently, just super ridiculous. You see, the only way you could use “between a woman and her doctor” to prove my assertion wrong would be if “between a woman and her doctor” were defined to include all cases outside of the “hard” ones. But you don’t know that as it’s undefined. As such, it doesn’t cast doubt or contradict my claim. It just means that the parameters need to be better defined. And that is precisely why I asked for a specific poll detailing the instances in which abortion should be legal or illegal, as those aren’t open for interpretation as they define the instances in which abortion should be legal or illegal or what restrictions should be or shouldn’t be put into effect. Quite simple, huh? Yes, I do believe so.
As it is, you have an extreme knack for trying to call into question the polls I give you which deal with abortion specifics by providing non-specific polls. That doesn’t mean polls aren’t proof. If means that the polls you use need to be more detailed and limited in their scope. For example, check out the Pew Research Center survey. Aug. 11-17, 2009 poll.
You’ll notice in one question 41% of Americans say abortions should be made more difficult to obtain to while 50% oppose. In the next question, you’ll find that 71% of Americans support parental consent laws for minors and only 19% oppose. I asked you this question before, but how do you account for the discrepency? Your response was “because polls are innacurate”. Well guess what? That’s not totally correct. You can account for the discrepency based on the fact that not every American has the same idea of what constitutes “making abortions more difficult”, whereas most every American knows what it means to require a minor to get parental consent before having an abortion. The first question is open to interpretation, and as a result you’ll get a host of different meanings as to what “more difficult” really entails, while the second isn’t. Almost no one (well, except for some pro-choice advocates who don’t want to face the truth) would argue that the first poll is superior to a series of polls which ask Americans what abortion restrictions should be enacted, if any.
What’s comical about this whole thing is that to try to make your “point”, of which you have none, you’re having to rely on the very same polls you discredit by calling unreliable and open to interpretation. If said polls are unreliable and open to interpretation, then why are you relying on them to disprove my claim which were based on a series of polls which weren’t open to interpretation and pretty damn reliable? Think about that one for a bit.
So I can’t create an analogy which ignores “one or more of your necessary conditions” as it relates to abortion because it’s illogical, yet your own convoluted arguments can ignore “one or more of the necessary conditions” as it relates to abortion and be logical? Hmmm, really? I don’t think so.
Note how you didn’t bother responding to my point about self-determination and how it relates to abortion and cases of infanticide. Presumably, you would not argue that a newborn incapable of self-determination be allowed to be thrown into the Hudson whereas a newborn capable of self-determination be spared such a fate because (s)he is capable of self-determination. Self-determination would not be deemed important. Rather, the only thing important is that both individuals are born. On the flip side, you would not argue that a fetus capable of self-determination should not be allowed to be aborted, whereas a fetus incapable of self-determination be allowed to aborted. No, you will argue that both can be aborted regardless of whether they are capable of self-determination or not because they’re inside of the woman’s body. In other words, the only thing which matters is that neither are born.
If location, therefore, is the only thing that matters, then one of two things must be true:
(1) Self-determination isn’t a “necessary condition”. Or
(2) Your argument is illogical because you’re ignoring a “necessary condition”, in which case an unborn child capable of self-determination cannot be aborted and a newborn child incapable of self-determination should be allowed to be killed. Of course, the first is impossible if the second is true, but would you really argue the second to be true? Given what you’ve typed, I’d say no.
I’m sure you’ll ignore this, though, as you did before.
It’s twice been established that you ignore your own “necessary conditions”, meaning you’re just typing out of your ass.
You ignored it because you can’t answer it without showing your own hypocrisy. You talk of logic, but that’s all it is-- talk. When it comes to actually engaging in logical arguments and applying that logic, you wuss out and claim I’m being illogical.
Great. So the pro-choice argument is as such, seeing as how you can’t seperate the “necessary conditions” involved in the abortion debate from one another:
“The woman has the absolute right to control her own body, but only up until viability, because the fetus is both a person and not a person, and we know and don’t know when the life of a human begins, even though we need to debate the value of that human life which the unborn may or may not be/have.”
…Yeah. That’s not a self-defeating/self-refuting statement in any way.
rolls eyes
This is sooo ridiculous. When it comes to the unborn, your argument is that is much meet all the “necessary conditions” for it to be impermissible to kill that child (i.e., “not in the woman’s body”, “aware”, “sentient”, "able to practice self-determination), but when it comes to the born, you switch your argument to where only some of those “necessary conditions” must be true in order for it to be impermissible to kill that child (i.e., “you only need to be born”). It doesn’t matter whether or not that newborn fails to meet the other criteria. In other words, you place on the unborn some rigid standard that you’re unwilling to also place on the born. That’s called picking and choosing when and where you’re going to apply your own argument. It’s also illogical and it’s intellectually dishonest. But like you’ll acknowledge that.
Get real. I bet you spent hours reading Wikipedia to try to sound smart. Absolutely none of the above quoted is true. The only thing you’ve “proven” is that the educational system in the U.S. is the pits. Ignoring large swathes of what I type out while casting aside your own “necessary conditions” proves just how little you really know or understand.
So let me make sure I understand this correctly. You’re saying that the individual whose argument is “not aware” vs. “aware” really doesn’t mean “not aware” vs. “aware”, but rather rather means contingent on degrees of awareness, even though his/her argument doesn’t mean contingent on degrees of awareness, but rather “not aware” vs. “aware”? And you trying to redefine the individual’s actual argument because his/her argument would necessitate being allowed to kill those individuals who aren’t aware constitutes me misunderstanding logic? REALLY…!!! That sounds like you engaging in a straw man.
So essentially, as I’ve pointed out prior, your argument exists only so long as society doesn’t get together and decide that the unborns are persons? Mind you, numerous states already defined a “child in utero” as a person, though you ignored this point before. If what you say is the case, then your argument is based squarely on what is currently, not what should be, and the moment society decides that the unborn at all gestational ages should be protected, then you will agree that they should be protected and the abortion debate will thusly end and poof into thin air, for the basis of your argument will now have shifted in favor of banning abortion.
But lol… Who are YOU kidding? The moment that happens, you’d be up in arms screaming about “tyranny” or something to that effect, meaning my comparison isn’t illogical as it’s not based on what is, but rather what should be. You’re just screaming “That’s illogical!” because you’re trying to argue way over your head.
Which brings me to my next point…
No shit you don’t understand. You keep spouting some nonsense about “necessary conditions”, but this doesn’t mean anything. Not only do you not consider your own “necessary conditions” all that necessary and bundle them all up and weight them against each other in a single statement-- as you would get a self-defeating argument, for the simple fact that all of your “necessary conditions” couldn’t coexist within the same argumen-- But there is a plethora of pro-life literature which deals with virtually every individual argument made a pro-choicer. That’s not “I like their arguments better”. That’s you telling a flat out lie when you say that one is leaving out the “necessary conditions” of abortion.
(1) Pregnancy is unique, is non-comparable to other situations and is deserving of its rules and considerations.
(2) Someone who is born can’t demand of a woman in some facet. If someone who is born were to suddenly attach his or herself to the woman, the woman could unattach herself.
(3) The unborn, by virtue of being the cause of the pregnancy, can demand of a woman in some facet what someone who is born cannot. So while the woman could unattach herself from a born individual, she cannot the unborn because the situation between the born individual attached to her and an unborn individual attached to her are different.
What’s convoluted about that?
You don’t have to assume anything, for it is a logical conclusion based on what you wrote. If, as you assert, pregnancy is a unique situation and is deserving of its own rules and considerations, then it can’t be held in the same vein as any other situation, otherwise it fails to be a unique situation deserving of its own rules and considerations. So which is it? Unique or not?
I lol’ed. So let’s be clear here before I response. You’re saying that the unborn makes no demand of the woman?
So are you saying because I’m not obligated to let you use my kidney, that I’m also not obligated to follow any law which looks to impose upon me a set of morality that is not my own? Haha! Now THAT is a completely illogical, not to mention overly stupid and nonsensical, statement. But hey… Considering who made it, it’s just par for the course, really.
For you to be able to “take things to their logical conclusion”, you would have to have at least a basic understanding of logic. Unfortunately, you do not and I doubt you’ll ever gain one, either.
As I say many times, we can go at this all day. You really-- I mean REALLY– have no idea what you’re talking about, and it completely amuses me to watch you flail about. They’re quite logical and you can put them to the test.
…Well, if you would stop ignoring the things I typed out. I mean, seriously. You completely ignored me deconstructing common pro-choice arguments. What the hell’s up with that?