Arguing About Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter VanitasVanitatum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pattylt said:
They are abandoning the religious angle so my 99% is probably incorrect.
Click to expand...
Just scanning this thread I would say that about 50% of the pro-life side have tried a religious argument. I’ve only found one on the pro-choice side that had not claimed, “that’s just your religion, man,” against a non-religious claim, at some point, and she has tried to make a scientific argument which I believe is the religious equivalent.
 
Hume said:
This is why I’ve said repeatedly that the most ethical path is one where choice reigns and we pro-lifers do as much as we can to systematically eliminate the reasons a mother would choose to abort the fetus
Click to expand...
Please don’t pretend that you’re pro life.
Hume said:
Paid maternity leave (at least a year), health insurance for mom and baby, so on…
Click to expand...
I agree with that, and research to make pregnancy as safe and impact free as possible. But we should also make abortion illegal.
 
Hume said:
You’re forcing her to undergo pregnancy. You can deny that, sure. But that’s still the reality of the thing.
Click to expand...
Conclusions aren’t arguments.

Vast majority of pregnancies are due to voluntary choices thus not forced to undergo pregnancy (this is an argument).
Hume said:
No, your novel rule here is absurd.
Click to expand...
Again, conclusions aren’t arguments.

Even the CAF rules prove you wrong, which list what one cannot post not what one must post
 
Hume said:
It’s a moral dilemma where the life of an unborn human (which has value) is weighed against the bodily autonomy of a woman (which has value).
Click to expand...
Again, if the baby is a “human” then it also has bodily autonomy which is violated, and thus this “moral dilemma” is a red herring which simultaneously recognizes and violates “bodily autonomy”
 
Last edited:
But I am pro-life. I want the woman to keep the baby. But the difference between you and me is that I’m not willing to force her hand to do it.
 
It’s not a red herring if it pertains to the subject matter being discussed. I’m starting to think you just don’t know what it means. Sorta like the crowds that cry “strawman” without seeming to know what that means…

It’s a moral dilemma as I’ve identified and the only ethical course is to side with the woman. And hope she chooses life.

The reason for this is we default to Choice unless there’s a really good argument to be made.

You don’t have one. You just have a value preference, and that’s fine.

But it doesn’t give you the right to force anyone’s hand other than your own.
 
Sure it’s pro-life. Just not in the way that you are because I’m not authoritarian about it.
 
Didn’t even address the argument, hence proving the point that the “moral dilemma” is self contradicting by simultaneously recognizing and violating bodily autonomy.
 
Nonsense. It’s simply favors the woman over the fetus. You just don’t like that and I understand.
 
Hume said:
It’s simply favors the woman over the fetus
Click to expand...
With no logical basis for why bodily autonomy can be simultaneously violated and preserved. Your argument is premised on a logical fallacy that can’t be repaired.
 
It’s a conflict where both parties can’t win. We call this a dichotomy because you either enslave the woman OR you recognize her right to preserve herself before preserving others (like a fetus).
Someone’s going to lose. . . .

As an aside, if I’ve committed a logical fallacy you seem to be unable to identify which one that is. It’s probably because I haven’t. I’m just disagreeing with you.
 
Last edited:
In the vast majority of pregnancies the woman undergoes some sort of lasting bodily damage and in all pregnancies she undergoes a risk of death.

It happens. Even in the US.

“You’ll probably be fine” is simply not a good enough reason to force someone to do something that will likely harm them in multiple ways.

Only fools consider pregnancy a risk free enterprise.
 
Hume said:
Only fools consider pregnancy a risk free enterprise.
Click to expand...
Wow ok so now your argument boils down to:

Human A can kill human B , if the interaction of human A and human B is not “a risk free enterprise” for human A.

That just opened a hole the size of mac truck for mass murder nationwide.
 
If you pose a risk of bodily damage to somebody, it’s a very well established principle of law that they can undergo reasonable efforts to alleviate that risk.

Swing and a miss…
 
Last edited:
Hume said:
But the difference between you and me is that I’m not willing to force her hand to do it.
Click to expand...
That’s pro-choice. If you can’t accept the reality that you are pro-choice your arguments are meaningless.
 
MarkRome said:
40.png
Hume:
But the difference between you and me is that I’m not willing to force her hand to do it.
Click to expand...
That’s pro-choice. If you can’t accept the reality that you are pro-choice your arguments are meaningless.
Click to expand...
For those of you tracking fallacies (lookin’ at you, @Aquinas11) , this is a “No True Scotsman”.

I’m both. I want her to have choice and I want her to choose life.
 
Last edited:
MarkRome said:
That’s pro-choice. If you can’t accept the reality that you are pro-choice your arguments are meaningless.
Click to expand...
I’m pro Climate CHange. I believe the climate changes! It is cold in the winter and hot in the summer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top