This thread’s tomato has long since rotted in the fridge but the fungus continues to grow.
I’ll repeat again. I don’t have to prove anything. I never claimed to prove anything. YOU DID, so the burden of proving is on you and you alone. “still a possibility” is a long way from proof.
I asked a couple of times whether the people in your preferred polls were focusing on the motives, from a personal moral opinion standpoint, or the illegal/legal aspect of the question. Do you know? Can you know? You can’t because of the uncertain nature of polls described in my two links and your own. Polls are not proof and you haven’t proved anything. You’ve simply expressed an opinion, and shown evidence that it’s possible.
If there were no other polls listed except for the ones you selected your assertions would still be in doubt because POLLS ARE NOT PROOF. Try to get that through your “I’m right no matter what” defense. All three links offered about the nature of polls show that is an accepted fact about polls.
You need to acknowledge this fact or prove otherwise before we waste anymore time on the poll data.
They’re not. Show some credible evidence to he contrary or you’re just spouting your personal opinion.
One bit is all it takes. I’ve said over and over, I’m not trying to disprove anything about those polls. You have s serious problem understanding the difference between fact and opinion, and what constitutes strong evidence and weak. Polls are not proof is widely recognized. You don’t get to reverse that just because you feel like it.
All I did was show poll after poll that showed your assertion was in doubt because I noticed you had ignored the polls from your own cite. I showed that from the number of polls listed many polls could be interpreted to contradict your assertion. {because polls are subject to interpretation} I won’t waste time on that anymore. Polls aren’t proof and I’ve provided evidence to demonstrate that. Your own cite supported it. Provide credible evidence to the contrary or be honest enough to admit your mistake.
Here’s the important difference. Try to grasp it.
Analogies can be interesting and useful in discussing an issue. Like polls some are better than others. like polls they have their limits.
YOU tried to use them to claim “logical conclusions” which is akin to claiming polls are proof. You set a higher standard for yourself by making that claim. My use of analogies is just as a discussion tool and an example. All I use them for is perspective. Your claim is more. You seem to think that because of your oh so wonderful “logical conclusions” you have created ironclad arguments for a pro life position and against pro choice arguments. I just thought I’d point out that you haven’t since your “logical conclusions” don’t stand up to actual logic.
Yep. Since it isn’t really logical, as I’ve pointed out.
I never claimed my analogies or examples were “logical conclusions” as you have.
When you set a higher standard for your own arguments then you are expected to live up to them. I’m just demonstrating that you haven’t.
Wrong. I’ve demonstrated it using a principle of logic that very much applies to this issue.
You’re working real hard to try and force some absolutes in an issue that contains non absolutes. The lack of absolutes is part of why pro choice advocates prefer choice. All you arguments amount to an incredibly long expression of your personal opinion while you try to pass them off as irrefutable. Your opinion is your opinion, and doesn’t qualify as irrefutable.
Well duh!
As I explained. The law and long accepted traditions of society , which are not the same regarding the unborn.
The point is that for your analogies concerning abortion to actually be “logical conclusions” they have to contain the necessary conditions. That’s part of what makes pregnancy and legal abortions a unique circumstance for society to decide on.
. I literally laughed out loud at this.
Reality, and the facts of how procreation works, determined the differences between the born and the unborn, not me. You’re the one that is being intellectually dishonest by trying to compare the two while denying the very relevant and significant differences as if they don’t matter.
Your argument doesn’t become more logical because of volume, or because you rephrase the same argument a dozen times. Your “logical conclusions” aren’t logical. I don’t need to reread them to know that, and I won’t keep responding to the same illogical argument.
I absolutely DO NOT cast them aside. I understand the very significant difference between an analogy as a discussion point, and perspective, and trying to present it as a “logical conclusion” You apparently do not. This is highlighted by the numerous times you’ve reworded and misrepresented my arguments.
Nope. I’m noticing that you compare fetus and newborn as if “aware” is the same for both. Most abortions occur before a brain is fully formed , which is a pretty significant difference. You’re not comparing two identical things in that argument. In many cases it’s still an embryo, rather than a fetus.
You should review what strawman is again. You’re mistaken.
And many people still disagree about that definition and how and when it’s applied. That’s how society works. There are religious pro life groups right now trying to legalize a fertilized egg as a person even while doctors point out it doesn’t make sense.
, Speaking of nebulous. Do I need to point out that you are no more moral authority in in declaring what should be than anyone else?
Gibberish.
Just as you disagree with current law, I can disagree with any legal changes.
I’m not screaming anything. I’m saying it’s illogical because of the principle of logic I’ve named and explained.
. It’s an established element of logic. Yes or no?
- They do exist simultaneously within the issue of abortion which is what makes it unique and complex, and what makes your “logical conclusions” fail the logic test.
How exactly does volumes of arguments from obviously biased sources change anything about the principles of logic. While we’re at it, how much of that pro life material is based on religious beliefs? There’s a plethora of religious apologists literature to , but volume doesn’t make religious beliefs logical.
You tend to go to extremes to try and establish absolutes. Pregnancy is unique and the combination of issues that exist within the abortion question. I didn’t say that no comparisons can ever be made. Only that we recognize that all comparisons are flawed because the exact conditions are do not exist.
Let’s say after an accident a family member is in a coma and the doctors say that they are not likely to ever come out of it. They are being kept alive on life support. Who gets to decide if the life support is turned off?
Classic “does not follow” failed attempt at logic. If the unattached cannot demand then the attached must be able to. NO! because the ability to demand or not is not necessarily connected to the condition of attachment.
Except she can detach the unborn from herself, which is what we’re discussing.
Maybe nonsense is a better word than convoluted.
Again, I laughed out loud. No it isn’t.
The combination of issues is unique. That doesn’t mean we have no point of reference at all to consider. You’re making up an extreme absolute that doesn’t exist.
In the context of your argument the unborn is not making any demand te remain connected to the woman. Just as a person in a coma, being kept alive on life support, cannot make a request to stay hooked up to life support.
I was playing around with your nonsensical argument with your own game.
I did and they failed. I understand that you can repeat DID NOT ! DID NOT! indefinitely.
It’s about as unimpressive as it gets.
I’m not going to continue to rehash your same bad arguments just because typed it out. I told you posts ago they were illogical, I explained why in detail and then named a specific element of logic that demonstrates their failing.
Your response is “but that doesn’t count” Not very convincing.
Hey, does that mean I’m a fun guy? 
I’m still curious how a “rape” exception would work in practice. Does the woman have to file a police report? Does her alleged rapist have to be identified before she can get her abortion clearance? Does she have to press charges? How much delay in processing is required, on the assumption that if an abortion is going to happen, better sooner than later?
How did rape exceptions work in the 14 states that had them pre-Roe?
If I make a claim and provide the requisite evidence backing up that claim, then the burden of proof shifts to you to prove that my claim is false. And this is where we are and where we will be forever, because you can’t prove it as false.
Remember that whole analysis thing I quoted about Americans being remarkably consistent between their personal views of abortions and what they believe the legal status of abortion should be? Probably not, since every time I quoted it you glossed over it. I wonder why?
(Actually, I don’t wonder. I know why.)
No matter how many times you try this, you’ll still be wrong. When it comes to matter of public policy, the only way to determine whether or not the public would support that policy is to-- you know-- ask them. The only thing you have proven is that more specific is better than general. You constantly running and posting generalized polls just speaks to this fact. This isn’t an “I’m right you’re wrong” kind of thing. Rather, this is an instance in where you’re wrong and don’t want to acknowledge you’re wrong, so instead you want to kick, scream, argue and try to fight a generally accepted truth. If you’re going to poll people, leave out the weasel words and nebulous statements and ask them about specific policies.
I’m going to snip the rest of that because I’ve noticed that no matter how many times I make a point or ask you a specific question, you flatly ignore it. I mean, I’m still waiting for you to explain to me what “between a woman and her doctor” means, what situations are contained within such a nebulous idea and how that contradicts any of my claims. Though I doubt I’ll ever get a response.
Since you don’t know what logic is, it’s highly doubtful that you would be able to point out what logic is or isn’t.
No. Just on. In one instance you set up a logical conjunction in which all operands must be true for it to be impermissible to kill a child, yet you turn around then create a logical disjunction to where only one must be true in order for it to be impermissible to kill that child. And to determine when you use a conjunction and a disjunction, you look at whether or not that child is inside of the woman’s body. But as this is one of the premises used to determine whether or not that child can be killed or not, is means that your argument is entirely circular and without justification.
(Chances are you’ll be running to Wikipedia upon reading this.)
Utterly ridiculous. The statement “a woman should always have the right to obtain an abortion if she wants one” is an absolute statement which advocates for “choice”. Try again.
Now this is a cop-out if I ever did read one. Nothing of what you quoted was an opinion. What you quoted was my responses to you claiming that the two most common pro-choice arguments some can exist simultaneously with all of their “necessary conditions” held as true. It’s impossible. And I know you know it’s impossible precisely because you simply passed it off without even attempting to address it.
…Yeah. And you’ve lost, least because you’ve contradicted yourself. So now you agree that being born is the only “necessary condition” that matters? Something I’ve said hundreds of times over, only for you to tell me “Nuh-uh!” just as many times?
Well this is false on both points. I direct you towards the 1859 quote. Just because you can ignore it, doesn’t make them false.
HAH! Like, a million times over. Based on what you’ve written out, we can assume that the “necessary conditions” are something like that:
(A) Not in the woman’s body
(B) Sentient
(C) Aware
(D) Capable of exhibiting self-determination.
If all of these are true, then it’s impermissible to kill the child in question. Conversely, if any one of these are false, then it’s therefore permissible to kill that child. Your problem is two-fold:
(1) You don’t constrain the ability to kill a child by B, C and D, but rather A. And
(2) Because you don’t like the latter statement, when someone argues that it should be permissible to kill a child because they fail to meet all of the above criteria, you throw out B, C and D and instead argue that the determining factor is A. But by doing this, you are ignoring your own “necessary conditions”, which either means that they’re not all necessary or that one of them (“not in the woman’s body”) takes precedence over the rest. So what is it? I asked you this question before and you flatly refused to answer it, so I’m asking it AGAIN.
So, in other words, you throw out three of the “necessary conditions” when it suits you to do so? That doesn’t work. You see, I’m being consistent, and am applying your rules to everyone equally. You, on the other hand, are only apply your rules to those individuals you want to apply it to. That’s called being intellectually dishonest.
Your argument doesn’t become more logical because of volume, or because you rephrase the same argument a dozen times. Your “logical conclusions” aren’t logical. I don’t need to reread them to know that, and I won’t keep responding to the same illogical argument.
[/quote]
A common debate tactic is to ignore that which one cannot answer. You’re good for this. For example, you contradict yourself left and right and when I point out a contradiction (as I will later on). You also tend to make just a ridiculous argument, and when someone bothers to call you out on said argument, you either run away or stick your fingers in your ear and go “La la la la la la!”. It’s also odd to me to see you call my arguments illogical. That’s kind of… ironic, all things considered. You honestly have no idea what you’re talking about. Your arguments are so piss poor, I really have to wonder whether or not you actually believe them.
Yes, you absolutely do cast them aside. How can an act be permissible because the one acted against does not meet all the “necessary conditions”, but impermissible even though the one acted against does not meet all the “necessary conditions”? The answer is that it can’t be unless you’re picking and choosing what conditions are “necessary” and when they’re “necessary”.
Rofl! If we’re going to play the “fully formed brain” game, then it’s important to note that your brain is “fully formed/developed” until you reach your early 20’s. As that’s the case, then there’s no comparison to be made between killing a 30 year old and a 10 year old as that’s a “pretty significant difference”, right? lol, of course you won’t say that as that’d just be stupid. Henceforth why the argument isn’t “degrees of awareness” but rather “aware or not”. Again, you don’t get to change an individual’s argument because you don’t like it or its direct implications.
No, I’m correct. You’re engaging in a straw man.
Notice that you didn’t respond to the point.
(And, please, did you really pull out an appeal to authority?)
Which is why I’m perfectly willing to let society decide. You’re the one who isn’t. Remember this argument?
No, it’s not gibberish. I’m arguing what should be. Your entire argument hinges on what is. As this is true, then once we change what is then your argument will change. If you’re trying to argue that you’re arguing what should be, then you cannot say that society cannot define the unborns as persons and pass that off as “tyranny” or “trying to impose your morality on others” since you, apparently, have no problems doing just that.
Yes, you are. You’re screaming about things being ililogical precisely because you have no argument against them. Most of your arguments involve you either flatly ignoring something or contradicting an earlier claim you make. Which, for the record, you will ignore when its brought ot your attention.
As it relates to what you’re trying to type out, it doesn’t mean anythiing because there are no “necessary conditions” regarding abortion-- especially since you, yourself, have not only on more than one occasion stated that there are numerous pro-choice arguments and beliefs, but because every time you try to make an argument in favor of abortion, you throw out your own “necessary conditions” which one must meet if they would lead to killing some other gorup outside of the unborn.
Yeah, no. See, this is just insanely stupid. How can they all exist simultaneously? They can’t, because numerous ideas contradict each other. How can you be a person under the law yet have your life arbitrarily ended by another according to that individual’s whim? You can’t. How can you be a human yet not be entitled to human rights? You can’t. How can you have a right to bodily autonomy that can be violated by the developmental age of someone else? You can’t. You try to make it complex, even though it’s not, as a way to try to BS yourself into some kind of argument, though you’re really losing that battle.
How can an argument be biased if it’s made in direct response to the arguments pro-choicers like to make? Second of all, it’s not a matter of religious beliefs-- it’s a simple matter of logic. Notice that if you search the internet you won’t find “pro-choice answers to pro-life arguments”. Ever wondered why? Generally speaking, even the most ardent of pro-choice supports will concede that many of the arguments pro-choicers make are downright pitiful and an embarrasment.
If the same rules which would apply to someone who is attached to the woman’s body in a non-pregnancy related way would also apply to pregnancy, then pregnancy would be treated the same as the all non-related pregnancy issues in which someone is attached to the woman’s body, thus meaning pregnancy would not be unique, and could be compared to those non-pregnancy related situations. Of course, the last time I tried to make a comparison between pregnancy and something else, you told me that I couldn’t because pregnancy was unique and there was nothing it could be compared to. But how can that be? Pregnancy can’t be compared to something else yet it can be? Either pregnancy is a unique situation, where it can’t be compared to other situations, or it’s a non-unique situation, in which it can be. Those are your only two options.
Do you ever get tired of being a hypocrite who selectively applies his/her own arguments?
The family, assuming (s)he has no will. A simple question.
Uh-huh… Your grasp at logic is simply downright pitiful. First of all, a classic “does not follow” would be called a non-sequitur, since you’re big on “logic” (scoffs). Second of all, the following statement-- “the ability to demand or not is not necessarily connected to the condition of attachment”-- is downright stupid and is a statement made by someone who is off in his/her own fairytale world where pink firebreathing unicorns flutter about. The ability to demand of the woman is inherently connected with the condition of attachment (i.e., in this case pregnancy). There’s simply no way around this. Your argument would necessitate that either abortions always be legal, or that someone who is born be allowed to demand of a pregnancy woman the same way the unborn is. Though, I’ll go out on a limb here and say that you would reject both claims.
So pregnancy is a unique situation deserving of its own rules and considerations yet it’s being held to the same standard as everything else? Then, per your own argument, pregnancy isn’t a unique situation deserving of its own rules and considerations. Either that or you’re just picking and choosing when it’s comparable to other situations and when it isn’t.
And yet there’s nothing nonsensical about it. I ask you again, what’s wrong with that?
Yes, it is. You can’t argue that pregnancy is a unique situation deserving of its own rules and considerations and then turn around and say that because no one who is born can demand the use of the woman’s body that the unborn shouldn’t be able to, either. That’s called speaking out of both ends of your mouth. Or trying to, at least.
So let me make sure I have this correct. Initially, you told me that I couldn’t compare pregnancy to anything else because it was a unique situation and deserving of its own rules and considerations. Now, after I pointed out that if this is the case then abortion should be impermissible because, while it’s true that someone who is born cannot demand the use of the woman’s body, that pregnancy was a unique situation, and thusly entitled to its own rules which differ from that of everythingelse, you turn around and tell me that pregnancy can be compared to other situations. Hmmm, really? So pregnancy is unique and can’t be compared to other situations unless you’re using those situations to argue that abortion is permissible? Is that right?
Please. You’ve fallen into a logical blackhole that you’ve no hope of ever escaping from. You make up arguments and shift them as you see please. Either pregnancy is comparable to other situations, in which you must give the arguments I made before credence (the ones you dismissed on the basis of them not being comparable to pregnancy), or it’s not, in which case whether or not someone who is born can demand the use of the woman’s body is irrelevant. Logic 101-- you might want to try it sometime.
(Continued…)
It’s not? I’m curious as to how you came to that conclusion.
No, you weren’t.
Uh-huh. Really? I don’t think so. Actually, I know so. Contrary to what you personally believe, you’re not making any argument whatsoever. Your arguing strategy consists of two things: going “Nuh-uh!” and sticking your finger in your proverbial ear and pretending like you didn’t see any arguments levied against you. That’s no way to argue.
…Or well, maybe it is when your argument has no foundation upon which to stand.
There’s nothing wrong with my arguments. In fact, they’re quite strong and a hell of a lot stronger than your arguments which are either self-contradictory or simply non-existent, as every time I type something you can’t respond to you just ignore it.
Oh, it is? I don’t think so. Perhaps you might want to re-read your own arguments. As far as not being very convincing well… I think you might want to come out of that little world you’re living in and look at public opinion when it comes to being pro-life vs. pro-choice over the last thirty years, especially as it relates to older vs younger. You might be surprised 
(No I didn’t forget about your response Bryan, btw.)
Don’t worry about it - I think you and I have gone as far as we can.
To boil it all down to essentials, I don’t want the state dictating to an individual on the number and timing of that individual’s children. Everything else is window dressing.
They’ll collect a rape kit and get back to the victimin three years to let her know if she’s allowed an abortion or not.
There was a thread on this not too long ago - sorry, can’t be arsed to run the search now, but the general consensus seemed to be that if abortion is made illegal except in cases of rape/incest, then you’re gonna see a helluvan increase in false accusations.
Which, again, illustrates why this issue should remain between a woman, her doctor, and whatever gods she may or may not have. It’s no one else’s business, and attempting to make it otherwise results in scenarios such as I described.
You haven’t provided the requisite evidence. You linked to polls and claimed they proved your assertion. I told you polls do not constitute proof, and asked you to provide any credible evidence otherwise. Instead you provided a link that showed I’m correct about the nature of polls. No burden ever shifted to me because you never proved your assertion, never demonstrated that polls could constitute proof.
Instead you’ve been avoiding this point ever since your own link on polls failed.
Try addressing it honestly now. Can you provide any credible evidence that polls somehow constitute proof? If not then all you provided was your personal interpretation of the polls data, which is an opinion.
Quite the contrary. I provided evidence about the nature of polls and asked you to back up your repeated claim that those polls are proof. You tried and failed. Show me polls qualify as proof since that was your specific claim. Polls don’t become proof just because you really really want them to be.
I did explain it , within the context of that poll, and the nature of polls. I won’t again. It’s time for you to back up your claim that those polls constitute proof. Stop trying to redirect the discussion. **Back up your claim or admit you can’t. **
Gee that’s a lot of terminology. Now please explain specifically how that applies to any argument of mine. Hopefully my argument rather than one of your numerous misrepresentations.
address my statements not others.
It looked like more gibberish to me. It has to make some kind of sense for me to address it.
No. I’m just saying it’s a pretty dam clear and significant difference.
Again demonstrating you don’t know what constitutes proof.
break
Only if your name is Gus!
Seriously, I don’t know how you manage to keep up with all of this.
I’ve tried to cut down on all the tangents and focus on one or two arguments but OMG likes to redirect. We’ll have to stay on track or be done.
No. You need to grasp what necessary conditions are. In the bachelor example there are three necessary conditions that must be met to still be discussing a bachelor. If you leave one out then you’re no longer in the bachelor discussion and your conclusion is flawed, a logical fallacy.
All the issues you’ve tried to separate and take to so called “logical conclusions” exist together within the issue of abortion and connected in that issue in a unique way.
Bodily autonomy exists in other issues but not in the same way it relates to abortion.
Right to life and human worth exists in a discussion of the death penalty, but that’s not the same as a discussion of an embryo growing inside a woman and whether or not that embryo’s right to life exists, or outweighs the woman’s right to bodily autonomy.
That’s why when you discuss bodily autonomy and you think you’ve reached a “logical conclusion” by discussing rape , you haven’t because the necessary condition of human life growing inside an individual does not exist in rape.
That’s why when you discuss awareness , or right to life and you compare a newborn, to an embryo, you’ve left out the same basic necessary condition.
At the very least , the abortion issues necessary conditions are a life starting from a fertilized egg, going through stages of development, growing inside and dependent upon, a person’s body. You can’t reach “logical conclusions” talking about newborns and rape because those necessary conditions aren’t met.
Either you genuinely don’t get it, or simply refuse to acknowledge anything outside of your own thoughts. {Which seems more and more likely with every post}
You’re not getting it.
by being an embryo growing inside someone’s body.
??? I’m stunned at how ridiculous this question is.
Really? Did you find any of those pro choice supporters in this thread? Can you provide 2 examples of this?
Huh? How about an example that resembles reality?
No those aren’t. I explained it fairly clearly. Try reading it again. It has to do with a simple discussion and recognizing analogies are imperfect but sometimes useful, or mistakenly thinking you’ve reached a “logical conclusion”
It has to do with knowing the difference between your opinion, and having proved something. Important difference.
That correct application of logic is more important than terminology. I believe I mentioned before that I’ve encountered more than one poster who thinks a logic class makes them grasp it’s correct application. I find that isn’t true.
What I reject is your claim on what my argument necessitates.
It’s nonsense. You’re making shit up about a born person suddenly attached to a woman, and then making some ridiculous leap about the unborn making demands. Nonsense.
There’s no logic involved. It’s some bizarre formula you imagined. Since Abortion is a unique issue then what , opposites must be true. If born individuals can’t make demands then the unborn can, and that’s irrefutable logic? No, it’s nothing resembling logic.
I don’t believe I ever said that. I think this is your misrepresentation of my more nuanced point. Can you quote where I said that?
Sure seems like one of us does. I don’t believe I ever said abortion can’t be compared to anything else. You’re the one insisting it has to be all one way or all the other. You’re failing to grasp something that should be obvious isn’t a failing on my part. it appears to me you’d tried all through the thread to push human morality into some absolute standard. That may explain your distortion of logic.
It’s pretty simple. If the unborn can make demands just how are they going to communicate those demands? It seemed pretty obvious. That’s why I laughed at your suggestion that somehow that was another of your “logical conclusions”
I have a mental image of a fetus holding semaphore flags, or better yet, those glowing cones they use to guide landing military aircraft.
Yeah, I’ve noticed that OMG can’t seem to stay on track - don’t know if it’s on purpose or not. And unless there is something from him further on down, he’s started to ignore me again. I guess I’m not worth trolling… 
Well, that’s a lie. And an utter lie, too!
Uh-huh… Here’s the game that you’ve tried to play. Tried unsuccessfully, I might add.
I claimed that Americans would leave abortions legal in the hard cases and banned the rest. I then provided specific polls attesting to this fact. You disagreed and told me I was picking and choosing. I told you to provide evidence to the contrary of my claims. You didn’t, instead going to find some general polls which didn’t-- and still don’t-- contradict my claim. You claimed they did. I pointed out they didn’t, why they didn’t and asked you specific questions regarding those polls in relation to my question. You didn’t answer, and I feel you never will answer. Instead, you started trying to argue that my polls don’t constitute proof and that I can’t find anything which says polls are proof. I then pointed out that I don’t have to, as if I was wrong, it should have been very easy for you to prove me wrong. Yet no matter how many times I ask you to go out and prove me wrong, you don’t. When I ask you to show me a poll which shows that, when asked, Americans would leave abortions legal for things outside of the hard cases, you fail to produce. I wonder why that is?
You see, you’re trying to deflect away from the issue of you being completely unable to prove my assertions false. I only need to prove my assertions as true. It’s then up to you to provide evidence to the contrary, not on me to further provide justification as to why you should accept what I’ve already showed you.
No matter how many times you say this, it still won’t be true. However, since you want to talk of failing, let’s talk of failing.
When I asked you to show me the poll which said that, when asked, Americans would allow a woman to have an abortion because she felt the timing was wrong or that she wasn’t ready for a kid, did you do so? Nope. You FAILED to produce ANYTHING.
When I asked you to show me the poll which said that, when asked, Americans would allow a woman to have an abortion because she felt she couldn’t afford a baby at the moment, did you do so? Nope. You FAILED to produce ANYTHING.
When I asked you to show me the poll which said that, when asked, Americans would allow a woman to have an abortion because she was having relationship problems or didn’t want to be a mother, did you do so? Nope. You FAILED to produce ANYTHING.
When I asked you to show me the poll which said that, when asked, Americans would allow a woman to have an abortion because she wanted to finish school or hold a career, did you do so? Nope. You FAILED to produce ANYTHING.
When I asked you to show me the poll which said that, when asked, Americans would allow a woman to have an abortion because she didn’t like the sex of her baby, did you do so? Nope. You FAILED to produce ANYTHING.
When I asked you to show me the poll which said that, when asked, Americans would allow a woman to have an abortion because her husband or partner wanted her to do so, did you do so? Nope. You FAILED to produce ANYTHING.
On the flip side, I can absolutely provide polls which, when those questions are asked, show that all of those reasons garner less than 50% support of the public. So how does that translate into me failing? I can prove my assertions as true; you can’t even provide a single poll which contradicts any of my claims. Failing, indeed.
It constitutes proof that you’re wrong, since anti-abortion laws in the 19th century were passed for the reasons you say there weren’t.
I’ve actually responded to this twice in #2,791 and you flatly ignored it (not surprising!). So we’ll try this again. I’ll break it down into segments to make it easier on you.
(1) Without getting too complicated, your argument is that so long as the “necessary conditions” are are/aren’t met that abortion is impermissible/permissible. For example, you say that the unborn being located within the body of the woman is a “necessary condition” as it relates to the permissibility of killing that child via abortion, yet a “necessary condition” of abortion is that the unborn child be located within the body of the woman. In other words, you’ve set up an argument by which the permissibility of killing the unborn hinges on whether or not the unborn is located within the woman’s body where it can be aborted. If it is, which it is by virtue of being unborn, then abortion is permissible. That is an entirely circular argument and it gives no guise of trying not to be. It’s not going to fly. If location, as you say, is a “necessary condition”, then it must be a “necessary condition” in regards to the permissibility of killing that child, not as it relates to abortion. This brings us to the next point.
(2) As pointed out to you prior only to have you ignore, you don’t treat your “necessary conditions” as necessary in the slightest. For example, let’s assume your “necessary conditions” are is relates to the permissibility of kill the child are:
(A) In the woman’s body
(B) Non-sentient
(C) Non-human
(There are an infinite amount of “necessary conditions”, but for brevity’s sake we won’t get into them as they’d just cause you massive headaches. I just chose the arguments most commonly used in this thread.)
Now taking your argument at face value, then A, B and C must be true in order for it to be permissible to kill the child in question. If just one of these is false, then the entire statement is false. Therefore, if the unborn is not inside of the woman’s body, then it’s impermissible to kill it. If the unborn is sentient, then it’s impermissible to kill it. If the unborn is a human, then it’s impermissable to kill it. Right? Wrong!
First of all, you won’t argue, for example, that it’s impermissible to kill the unborn who is inside of the woman’s body because it is a human. You will argue, as you have been, that it’s still the woman’s body. Ergo, you’re either treating your “necessary conditions” to not be all that necessary, or you’re weighting the “necessary conditions” in such a way where “not being in the woman’s body” always take precedence over the other conditions, in which case the other conditions aren’t really all that “necessary”.
Second of all, and probably most damning for you, is that you’re not even consistent in the way you apply your argument. For example, whenever (A) is true, your argument follows the following form-- ([(A v B) v C]), whereas you argue that only one of your “necessary criteria” need to be true in order for it to be impermissible to kill that child. Both (B) and (C) could be false yet you wouldn’t argue it to be impermissible to kill the child in question. Yet, when (A) is untrue, your argument follows the following form-- ([(A & B) & C]), whereas you argue that all of your “necessary criteria” need be true in order for it to be impermissible to kill that child. But that’s nonsensical. How does the form argument change based on whether or not one of your “necessary conditions” are true? How does that even make sense? By doing as much, you ensure that it’s always permissible to kill a child which is inside of its mother’s body, yet never permissible to kill a child outside of its mother’s body. It doesn’t matter any other criteria, for whether they are true or false they cannot change the permissibility of the action. This is intellectually dishonest, and is you simply changing your argument as it suits you to do. Either you treat your argument as a conjunction or as a disjunction. So which one is it?
(3) So let me make sure I understand this correctly. The “necessary conditions” as they relate to abortion exist, but they exist in a way which only makes them relevant to abortion? That’s quite convenient for you, isn’t it? Not only do you get to define what condition is “necessary”, and not only do you get to apply an undisclosed and mythical weight to each, but when someone points out to you that your weight system would necessitate a certain outcome when applied to a different situation, you then get to claim that their relevance is limited to only abortion? No, I don’t think so. It doesn’t work that way, least because it’s ridiculous.
If, as your purport, the “necessary conditions” exist, then they exist as they relate to killing the child in question, not abortion, as some of those purported “necessary conditions” are a necessary condition of abortion even being contemplated in the first place (i.e., “because the child is inside of the woman’s body”). If, then, those “necessary conditions” exist as they relate to the killing of the child in question, then they most certainly can be applied elsewhere to invididuals in differing circumstances. If, for example, sentience is a “necessary condition” in deciding where killing someone, anyone, is acceptable, then those who are not sentient can be killed. If, for example, awareness is a “necessary condition” in deciding where killing someone, anyone, is acceptable, than those who are not aware can be killed. If, for example, whether or not the individual in question has had qualitative life experiences is a “necessary condition” in deciding where killing someone, anyone, is acceptable, than those who have not had qualitative life experiences can be killed. If, for example, if someone, anyone, fails to meet any of your criteria which you consider to be a “necessary condition”, then they can be killed all the same.
No, you’re not getting it. You look and sound fucking stupid. You keep making these justifications that I keep responding to, yet no matter how many times I respond to them you tell me how “illogical” they are while constantly either ignoring your own arguments, or changing up your argument.
It’s becoming ever so evident that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Not that it wasn’t already, mind you.
Perhaps you should read the 14th Amendment. No state can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. It doesn’t matter where that individual is-- if they are a person then they simply cannot be killed at the whim of another. There’s a damn good reason pro-choicers fight hard against defining the unborn as ‘persons’ under the law, and even why they oppose fetal homicide laws. Whenever you want to join me in reality, feel free.
The only ridiculous thing are the arguments pro-choicers throw out. They’re inane as they are dumb, and are what you’d expect of a child trying to justify his or her own actions.
Who cares about the pro-choicers in this thread? I’ve found that they’ll ignore things if it doesn’t conform to their worldview. How about something online? A quick internet search for the word “abortion”:
Perhaps it’ll hold more meaning because a self-described pro-choicer said it.
(Continued…)
In this thread there have to be, at the very least, a hundred different responses effectively arguing that because a woman isn’t required to donate her body to someone who is born to save their life or, at the very least, could refuse to continue providing her body for someone who is born to use, that she shouldn’t have to provide for the unborn in the same way she doesn’t have to provide for the born. Yet when I form an argument based off of the first part of the aforementioned statement (women do not have to give their bodies to someone who is born), and add in your statement about pregnancy being unique and thus being deserving of its own rules and considerations, you tell me to give an example that resembles reality? Hmmm, really? How about, if that’s the argument you’re going to make, you tell your fellow pro-choicers to stop providing situations which don’t resemble reality?
Ummm, right. Essentially, your “argument” boils down to me responding to something you typed out and you claiming that it’s just my opinion.
You know shit all about logic. This is why every time I break down your arguments as simply as I can, you totally ignore them and come up with some lame-brained excuse as to why you do.
Luckily, my claim doesn’t rest on what you think. At any rate, I’m still waiting for you to respond to the point I made.
Apparently, you not only missed the conversation about the violinist going on at the beginning of the thread, but you’ve somehow completely ignored all the pro-choicers in this thread arguing about how a born person who becomes attached to the woman can be detached at the woman’s discretion.
So the unborn exist in a vacuum and don’t effect the woman’s body? Since that is the case, then you just pulled the rug out from under the pro-choice argument.
…Though I’m sure you’ll be rethinking that.
Yes, what you typed out really was nonsense. But I’ll accept your apology.
Further proof that most of the things I type out go over your head. First of all, I didn’t sa abortion, but pregnancy. Second of all, I don’t like to play semantics, but in this case I will.
The closest situation to pregnancy one can think up is a situation in which a born individual suddenly becomes attached to the woman and needs her body to live for an undisclosed period of time. For all intent’s and purpose’s, such an would be deemed to have no right to use the woman’s body and the woman allowed to sever that connection if she so chooses. Most of the pro-choicers here have also used such a situation as justification as to why a woman should be allowed to abort a pregnancy. However, if pregnancy, is a unique situation then it can’t be compared to anything else and the rules that would apply in a situation where someone born became connected to the woman wouldn’t apply in the case of pregnancy. The reason they wouldn’t apply is because pregnancy is the direct result of an individual being in the unborn state-- a state, mind you, the born cannot be in. The two are fundamentally different. As a result, the unborn could make greater demands than the born could, one of those demands being the “right” to use the woman’s body (really, the “right” is to be left alone to gestate). To say it couldn’t would be ignoring the fundamentals of pregnancy.
I’m glad you’ve acknowledged your failings here.
Quite possibly because I said nothing about “abortion being compared to something else”, but rather “pregnancy being compared to something else”. It’s quite odd to me how you can see what I write out, quote it and then not even read what you, allegedly, read and quoted.
No. I don’t “insist” anything. I can read the arguments you attempt to make and the things you type out. Can you? Apparently, you can’t, because no matter how nonsensical, how illogical and just how inane they are, you continue to hold to them like you’re making some grand point. Well here’s a newsflash for you; you aren’t.
Everytime you try to criticize my logic, I laugh. I laugh, because it’s ridiculous, though you apparently think you’re making some kind of point.
Quite possibly because demands don’t have to be spoken. Demands are also taken to be requirements or needs. Yeah. I know. The English language is a wonderful thing.
I never ignored you to begin with. You’re the one who decided to stop arguing once it became deathly apparent you were getting some of that good California education (yeah, that’s sarcasm because California’s educational system sucks ass and is one of the worst in the nation). As it relates to your most recent post, I read it, sighed and said it wasn’t worth it.
And you haven’t because POLLS ARE NOT PROOF. Save yourself some typing because I’m not even reading the rest until you can address this honestly and directly.
No that isn’t my argument. Again, save yourself some typing because I’m not reading the rest until you stop rewording and misrepresenting my argument. Demonstrate you actually understand my point.
You said
Because words have meaning, “generally” kinda means more often than not. So I call bullshit, but really, I’m not interested in another tangent for you to expound on.
Hey OMG
Sincerely. I recommend it to anyone who is seriously interested in the abortion issue and the arguments from a point off reason over emotion. It’s the best analyzing of the various pro choice, pro life arguments I’ve seen to date.
I laughed several times as I read it because it was you, who tried to apply it incorrectly to support your argument , that once again provided a link that supports mine. I love poetic justice don’t you?
On any major issue involving large numbers of people you’ll have people who have opinions but are unaware of certain facts, or, simply haven’t really examined their own arguments in detail. I’m a big fan of examining the facts and the implications of the arguments and this author does an excellent job.
Did you notice the section discussing the polls?
Paradoxes? Conflicting data? Who said that? Me right?
Did you notice this in note 4?
Me again right?
Did you notice the deconstruction of pro life arguments?
Remember me pointing out your own link that included the mental health of the mother, and birth defects of the fetus allowances for abortion? Not logically compatible with “it’s a human person starting from conception”
I really like the part when the author explains his own reasons for being pro choice.
The author is certainly much better at articulating his views in a clear manner than I have been, but consistently, this link you provided supports my arguments much more than yours. {that’s MY actual arguments, rather than your distortions of them}
I find the irony of you providing a link that clearly supports me rather than you to be hysterically funny. My sincere thanks. This article makes your volumes of nonsense worth it.