:yawn:
Get to the point or I'm moving on.
Pro-life and Democrat
- Thread starter A-Scholten
- Start date
Get to the point or I'm moving on.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
it's right there in that post i linked to - two questions at the end that you've been reluctant to answer"
and this one, which I'm sure you'll ignore for the 7th time:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
#2
So perhaps “insist” was a poor choice of words. You are claiming that the mother has a moral responsibility to care for the newborn child, instead of allowing her the choice that you had granted her moments before
And so, we return to:
The new mother’s autonomy is more severely impacted by your insistence that she care for the newborn than it is by her preborn child
Therefore, “bodily autonomy” is not a valid rationale for allowing a woman the choice to kill her child before he is born and denying a woman the choice to kill her child after he is born
We determined in #1 that:
|
|
So perhaps “insist” was a poor choice of words. You are claiming that the mother has a moral responsibility to care for the newborn child, instead of allowing her the choice that you had granted her moments before
I’m not interested in the law, and in the scenario we’ve been discussing there’s been no mention of new caregivers or environment
And so, we return to:
The new mother’s autonomy is more severely impacted by your insistence that she care for the newborn than it is by her preborn child
Therefore, “bodily autonomy” is not a valid rationale for allowing a woman the choice to kill her child before he is born and denying a woman the choice to kill her child after he is born
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
you're conceding this one too?
why don't you take a break and come back to them in a day or two - i'd hate to see you give up on all of them
Conceding to what?
You've yet to logically establish that in-utero dependency is equal to that of ex-utero dependency.
It's called equivocation. You're declaring a subjective moral assertion rather than employing objective logic.
Nope.
It's called an opposing idea.
We declare personhood to be conferred at conception. That's supported by rock-solid biological facts.
You think that a baby gains personhood at some arbitrary and malleable point based on a standard that you won't share, and if you did state it, you'd quickly be shown as a hypocrite.
Equivocation the logical fallacy of using a term in multiple contexts without clearly differentiating between usages.
It looks like you have no idea what you're talking about.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
That's all fine and well...but it's not the subject matter currently being discussed. Hold your water.
Precisely. ok doser, is using the term 'dependency' to equate in-utero dependency to that of ex-utero dependency. Effectively he's - as you noted -
"using a term (dependency) in multiple contexts without clearly differentiating between usages."
Sure thing :up:
Actually, it is. You just desperately do not want the discussion to be over personhood.
Nope.
We hold that personhood is conferred at conception. A logical outworking of that is for location to be irrelevant to personhood. Thus to speak of dependency as if it has some relevance would be to assume the truth of your assertions.
Like I said, you're just making this up as you go in order to justify your lust for child killing.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
I'm well aware of your (and ok doser's) position on the matter. Both of your moral stances must ignore location of the fetus to assert and create moral prevalence. Yet, the fetus' location is vital to the very prohibition of its termination from the womb...else you've nothing to morally contend.
Hence, you only ignore location when the facts of it are no longer convenient to your moral rhetoric.
It's simply special pleading...among other fallacies.
"Like you keep saying"....your repetition of nonsense still remains nonsensical.
So if location is important, then was it wrong for the Germans to kill jews outside of the concentration camps/gas chambers, while being "ok" when the Jews were in them?
Nope. What's that have to do with gestation?
Duly noted.
Location location location.
You said "location" is what makes the difference between it being murder versus "choice."
So I was testing your claim.
You said "location" is what makes the difference between it being murder versus "choice."
So I was testing your claim.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
in both cases it was OK, because the germans wrote the laws and the laws said it was ok
What's your test have to do with gestation?