As tracer said, this is not the contrapositive. This is the inverse. The inverse is not necessarily true.
**
Wrong. Multiple typoes have made you do this. See below.
**
Correct. But once again you have shown the inverse does not logically follow. The contrapositive is “Something without fur cannot be a dog.” (And that’s not true, maybe the dog is a hairless breed or has been shaved, but that’s going out of scope of the point.)
**
No it suggests that "Non-breathing beings cannot be human. " This is more than just a typo, you are clearly confusing the inverse with the contrapositive, just as you did in the first message that I addressed this.
**
Correct. But once again you are applying a straw man to the inverse, not the contrapostive. The contrapositive is that a non-computer user can not be me. That’s definitely true.
**
Correct. I never disputed that. In fact, I said you were right in making this statement in my first post. It was your follow up explanation that was logically wrong.
The statement “Pro-choicers oppose the killing of adult humans” is equivalent to “People who don’t oppose the killing of adult humans aren’t pro-choicers.”
And you don’t need to show me the fallacy in “denying the antecedent” as you call it. I’ve encountered proofs in both high school and college. I’m full aware of the fallacy of it. My point was you were confusing your contrapositives with your inverses.
I absolutely agree with you. But that is after she has agreed to take the pregnancy to term, which means she has made the decision to allow this life to achieve the status of a full person, and has therefore taken on the responsibility for its well-being, just as a parent does after the child is born. It is before she has agreed to that (ex- or implicitly) that her rights trump the fetus’. (And after, in the sense that if it comes down to a question of whose life is paramount, it’s always mom)
I wouldn’t “exclude” anyone, because obviously I don’t have the power to. It is just my opinion that because they cannot possibly relate to the female position on this question, (and in fact have historically used this aspect of being female to control women, ahem) their opinions don’t mean much. I’m always happy when they do come down on the side of choice, of course. Support is good.
stoid
Bob, I guess you and I have different experiences. What can I say? While by no means all prolifers agree with that statement, it’s the point of agreement I’ve gotten to in many abortion debates; many of them seem to founder on the next step (i.e., whether the potential personhood of a blastocyte entitles it to rights).
I do think that it’s generally nonreligious prolifers who adopt this position. If you’re a religious prolifer, maybe that’s why you don’t know folks who take this position.
I join BobCos in saying that no prolifers I know of take that approach.
As an aside, I would point out that elective abortions are rarerly if ever performed at the blastocyte stage…so using that as a debating starting point seems a bit shaky.
I don’t think that “personhood” is a developmental stage in the life of a zygote/embryo/fetus. I don’t think that it’s a “potential” event, therefore the notion that pro lifers don’t understand the difference between “potential” and “actual” doesn’t really add up.
A summary of what I’m talking about can be found here. (I’m not looking to debate the biology and sentience isssue that often surround this aspect of the abortion debate, …that’s been done in other threads…just to outline my perspective on this notion of “potential personhood”)
