Issues other than abortion

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Because P2 is talking about a woman’s body. That of course has nothing to do with your conclusion C, as a fetus is not a womans body nor part of it.

It is 100% dependent on that woman’s body and that woman’s body alone. If that does not make it a part of it, then I don’t know what other definition would suffice.

Dependency is not a sufficient test to make that conclusion, and the reasons and analogies are obvious. It’s also 2 bodies, not 1.

 

[laylow]

Dependency is not a sufficient test to make that conclusion, and the reasons and analogies are obvious.

I disagree. Name one comparison that is one-for-one the same as a mother-fetus dependency.

 

[goout]

Kei:

How many times do I have to say this? A BABY IS NOT THE MOTHER’S BODY. This is a CLEAR AND PLAIN FACT.

Then when she detaches it from her body, do with it as you wish.

If the child wasn’t a human being, no problem.

Put it up on the mantle with the teeth!

The problem is, you don’t really think your position through.
Post after post, your logic is nothing but swiss cheese, and when that is shown to you, your reflex is
“it’s my body and I’ll do what I want”.

And look. That’s not reason, it’s just a naked claim to power.

You can do so much better than to be irrational…

 

[Vonsalza]

Because P2 is talking about a woman’s body. That of course has nothing to do with your conclusion C, as a fetus is not a womans body nor part of it.

Lol. That’s not a demonstration showing invalidity. That’s just you not liking the argument.

Let’s restate the first premise - “Fetal Development requires a woman’s body”.

That’s indubitably true, until science advances a bit further.

There’s an actual methodology here beyond “What I think”. Believe it or not, intro to logic in your phil department actually does have a textbook. lol.

When C is fallacious, sure I can.

Ok, but then fallacy is a comment on validity. You’ve yet to show me how the structure is wrong. Frankly, I’m starting to think you just don’t know how.

Not true. First we do not have absolute control and dominion over our bodies. Suicide can be very much a crime.

Suicide isn’t a crime for obvious reasons (whatcha gonna do? jail the dead?), so your rejection here makes absolutely no sense.
But if you’d like to say we don’t control our bodies - fine. You’ve challenged my soundness.
So who does? God? Can you prove this God exists?

And second, women nourish but they do not control and own development of their unborn child.

If a woman controls her body and the fetus requires it, she is free to deny nourishment to that fetus via abortion.

You know, since she controls her body. But again, that’s a premise you challenge on basis of soundness.

Fallacial conclusion from two unrelated premises.

I’m guessing you meant to use “fallacious”?

I believe that’s an apt demonstration of what is called argumentum ad hominem fallacy.

lol,

Clearly. I apologize for questioning your grasp on the basic rules of Aristotilian logic.

You can close your browser tab now. lol.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Because P2 is talking about a woman’s body. That of course has nothing to do with your conclusion C, as a fetus is not a womans body nor part of it.

Lol. That’s not a demonstration showing invalidity. That’s just you not liking the argument.

Let’s restate the first premise - “Fetal Development requires a woman’s body”.

That’s indubitably true, until science advances a bit further.

There’s an actual methodology here beyond “What I think”. Believe it or not, intro to logic in your phil department actually does have a textbook. lol.

When C is fallacious, sure I can.

Ok, but then fallacy is a comment on validity. You’ve yet to show me how the structure is wrong. Frankly, I’m starting to think you just don’t know how.

Not true. First we do not have absolute control and dominion over our bodies. Suicide can be very much a crime.

Suicide isn’t a crime for obvious reasons (whatcha gonna do? jail the dead?), so your rejection here makes absolutely no sense.
But if you’d like to say we don’t control our bodies - fine. You’ve challenged my soundness.
So who does? God? Can you prove this God exists?

And second, women nourish but they do not control and own development of their unborn child.

If a woman controls her body and the fetus requires it, she is free to deny nourishment to that fetus via abortion.

You know, since she controls her body. But again, that’s a premise you challenge on basis of soundness.

Fallacial conclusion from two unrelated premises.

I’m guessing you meant to use “fallacious”?

I believe that’s an apt demonstration of what is called argumentum ad hominem fallacy.

lol,

Clearly. I apologize for questioning your grasp on the basic rules of Aristotilian logic.

You can close your browser tab now. lol.

Aaaannd… more argumentum ad hominem. Tee hee! The sure sign of frustration and a sense of a losing debate. Perfectly understandable.

 

[Vonsalza]

And look. That’s not reason, it’s just a naked claim to power.

All rhetoric is built on axiom - basic accept/reject propositions that cannot be proven. They’re base.

As a basic axiom, yes, I believe that all people are entitled to exercise self-determination over themselves. This is why slavery is wrong.

But if you want to reject that basic axiom, then by all means explain to me who you think should be in charge of my body more than me.

 

[goout]

When you comprehend basic science, and give it the credence it is due in everyday life, we can have an intelligent argument.
Until then, you have assertions that sound good to you, but are really not very substantial.

 

[Vonsalza]

Aaaannd… more argumentum ad hominem. Tee hee! The sure sign of frustration and a sense of a losing debate. Perfectly understandable.

Yep. ya got me. As you said, I’m obviously being “fallacial”.

 

[goout]

Yes, I know, it’s a woman’s body and no one can tell her what to do.
Spare the bandwidth.

 

[Vonsalza]

When you comprehend basic science, and give it the credence it is due in everyday life, we can have an intelligent argument.
Until then, you have assertions that sound good to you, but are really not very substantial.

You’re mixing science and philosophy here, again.

Science can’t tell you when you’re a person. It can tell you when and how you form, but when that blob’s a person and thus due the protection of law? Wrong lane.

If you think the idea that women should be the masters of their own bodies is a bad one, fine.

But in a democracy, I’m going to severely outvote you, thanks be to God.

 

[Vonsalza]

Yes, I know, it’s a woman’s body and no one can tell her what to do.
Spare the bandwidth.

Hey, I get it.

If she’s not her own boss, who is? Serious question.

 

[goout]

goout:

Yes, I know, it’s a woman’s body and no one can tell her what to do.
Spare the bandwidth.

Hey, I get it.

If she’s not her own boss, who is? Serious question.

Right, because freedom and responsibility reduce to oppressive authority.
Sick.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

goout:

Yes, I know, it’s a woman’s body and no one can tell her what to do.
Spare the bandwidth.

Hey, I get it.

If she’s not her own boss, who is? Serious question.

Right, because freedom and responsibility reduce to oppressive authority.
Sick.

Oppressive authority over ourselves, yes.

It’s the best kind. In any other context, you’d be screaming your support until you were hoarse.

 

[goout]

goout:

Vonsalza:

goout:

Yes, I know, it’s a woman’s body and no one can tell her what to do.
Spare the bandwidth.

Hey, I get it.

If she’s not her own boss, who is? Serious question.

Right, because freedom and responsibility reduce to oppressive authority.
Sick.

Oppressive authority over ourselves, yes.

That’s sick and perverse. It’s the same logic the Nazis used to kill millions of people.
It’s sick, and barbaric.

Why can’t you learn from science and history?
You care about women, yet you resort to ignorance? S

 

[Vonsalza]

That’s sick and perverse. It’s the same logic the Nazis used to kill millions of people.
It’s sick, and barbaric.

Respectfully, no it isn’t.
Yours is the logic they used to kill millions. "I know what’s best, yield to my authority or the authority of the one I represent.

My logic involves respecting the autonomy of all people, including women.

Why can’t you learn from science and history?
You care about women, yet you resort to ignorance? S

History teaches us that the greatest ideal is individual liberty.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Aaaannd… more argumentum ad hominem. Tee hee! The sure sign of frustration and a sense of a losing debate. Perfectly understandable.

Yep. ya got me. As you said, I’m obviously being “fallacial”.

Just can’t help yourself can ya! Right out of the playbook of the debate loser. Turn on the ad hominem attacks. So funny! Don’t worry I won’t overestimate your ability to debate again.

Obviously when I said “suicide” the implication was “suicide attempt” which can be a crime. But you knew that. Nitpicking and being disingenuous doing so…right out of the very same playbook. What’s next my grammar? LOL

I love these debates. Tee hee!

 

[Vonsalza]

Obviously when I said “suicide” the implication was…

Had some time to think about that one, have ya?

I agree. Silly thing for you to have said.

When you’d like to actually counter my points that I sent in that last constructive post, let me know.

Until then, best of luck.

 

[Sbee0]

Vonsalza:

goout:

Vonsalza:

goout:

Yes, I know, it’s a woman’s body and no one can tell her what to do.
Spare the bandwidth.

Hey, I get it.

If she’s not her own boss, who is? Serious question.

Right, because freedom and responsibility reduce to oppressive authority.
Sick.

Oppressive authority over ourselves, yes.

That’s sick and perverse. It’s the same logic the Nazis used to kill millions of people.
It’s sick, and barbaric.

Why can’t you learn from science and history?
You care about women, yet you resort to ignorance? S

History has proven again and again and again that when we use personhood as a measuring stick to determine worth or right to life, the results are catastrophic.

It really has no place with the informed in an abortion debate.

 

[Vonsalza]

History has proven again and again and again that when we use personhood as a measuring stick to determine worth or right to life, the results are catastrophic.

It really has no place with the informed in an abortion debate.

Absolutely. The wanton disregard the prolife movement shows women by trampling their autonomy and enslaving their actual, pregnant bodies simply can’t exist if you treat them as people and give them the autonomy due all people.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Obviously when I said “suicide” the implication was…

Had some time to think about that one, have ya?

I agree. Silly thing for you to have said.

When you’d like to actually counter my points that I sent in that last constructive post, let me know.

Until then, best of luck.

Not silly at all but whatever floats your boat…DUDE!