"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"

quip

BANNED
Banned
You cannot follow a conversation or recall what you wrote literally minutes after writing it. Re-read and see if you can identify your strawman.

I'll help you out, one comes right after "your idealistic presumption". If you wrote "your" it probably isn't your own argument, is it?

The next comes after "backing off your assertion" where what you feel is my assertion is nothing but yet another strawman you've crafted.

Right....I'm defending my analogy against your presumption. While you're claiming I'm strawmaning my own analogy in defense of such. :kookoo:
Sure, whatever....now move on and deal with the implications of your position.



Um, I did.

:darwinsm: Um..yea I know you did....and I was referencing your insinuating, faulty leap of logic.


Are you done with the red herrings yet?
 

One Eyed Jack

New member
The liberty involved in maintaining the choice...yes.

An anonymous pregnant woman...whom I'll never know, influence or otherwise interact with. Would you impose otherwise?

Depends on what you mean by impose. I'm all for making abortion illegal. If that's an imposition, then so be it.
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
And if 100 out of 100 choose to save the child rather than the old man does that mean that we can kill old people for the sake of convenience?

Who people choose to fail in this absolute fail of a hypothetical says nothing about the legality of killing another human.

Speaking of strawmans and red herrings. :chuckle: .....disanalogous and irrelevant to my scenario.

Again, :sigh: Per my analogy: Chosing the suffering, fully developed human being (A) over the idealized version i.e. zygote (B)... illustrates the relative, moral values humans intuitively attach upon each.

1. My scenario's conclusion illustrated that the vast majority would be intuitively moved to save A over multiple instances of B. Thus, their relative moral values are at variance.

2. Your position has historically been that A = B (morally speaking)

3. Conclusion: You are in error. (at least on the intuitive, ostensible level)

I also wrote this proviso...alowing you to define/refine your position:


Well then, are you backing off your assertion that a zygote holds the moral equivelent value of say, a fully developed, independently functioning human being? If not, then it's entirely relevant to your objection to abortion...so, deal with its implication instead of cowardly running from it.



And instead of answering my question...you circumvented it by calling it a strawman? :confused:

Now either rebut my boxed inquiry, show me how this is a strawman or bow out gracefully. Your choice....just quit playing these hide and seek games.
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
This just shows that you don't pay attention.

Quote me on the above.


Well then, are you backing off your assertion that a zygote holds the moral equivelent value of say, a fully developed, independently functioning human being? If not, then it's entirely relevant to your objection to abortion...so, deal with its implication instead of cowardly running from it.

 

WizardofOz

New member

Well then, are you backing off your assertion that a zygote holds the moral equivelent value of say, a fully developed, independently functioning human being? If not, then it's entirely relevant to your objection to abortion...so, deal with its implication instead of cowardly running from it.


Oh, wow. I said quote me. You just quoted yourself instead. :help:
 

mighty_duck

New member
MD asked:But in the case of the burning fertility clinic, where we can either save a freezer full of thousands of embryos or a single crying child, most people would save the child. Why is that?
See above. Would you save the old man or the baby in the burning building? Now, does you answer have anything to do with the legality of killing either? :nono:
So you answer a question with another question. That's called a dodge.

Instead of dodging, or telling us why this is inapplicable, why not answer the question?

For example, with your question:
All else being equal, I would save the child rather than the old man. Why? Because he probably has more years to live, and thus I would be saving something more precious. We also have a natural instinct to protect our young, them being incapable of defending themselves.


Now can you make a similar attempt? Why would you save the baby and not the freezer full of embryos?
 

WizardofOz

New member
MD asked:But in the case of the burning fertility clinic, where we can either save a freezer full of thousands of embryos or a single crying child, most people would save the child. Why is that?

And most people would save the child over the old man. And most people would save their own child over 100 strangers. None of this has a thing to do with abortion.

As I said:
What in the world does this hypothetical have to do with abortion?

Nothing.

When speaking of abortion, we don't have to choose between one life or the other. We have to choose between the whims and convenience of one versus the life of the other.

In other words, your entire "argument" is a false dilemma.


Now can you make a similar attempt? Why would you save the baby and not the freezer full of embryos?

I would save the baby as unplugging the freezer would destroy the embryos anyway.
 

WizardofOz

New member
Going in circles...

Going in circles...

:sigh:
Do you have a point?

Is "A=B" or not your moral position on the matter of abortion?

If so, my point remains. If not...explain.

I have...repeatedly. You either don't pay any attention or have an inability to recall what has already been said.

Either way, you're a waste of time. :wave:
 

mighty_duck

New member
I would save the baby as unplugging the freezer would destroy the embryos anyway.
Ok, at least this was an answer.

Assuming they would stay cold enough until you could wheel the freezer to another outlet, would you still save the baby rather than the embryos?

If so, why?
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
I have...repeatedly. You either don't pay any attention or have an inability to recall what has already been said.

Either way, you're a waste of time. :wave:

WizardofOz said:
A blastocyst does not necessarily need to be considered a moral equal to the mother in order to want to legally protect the blastocyst from being aborted

If the mother holds the superior moral position...why not the legal one as well? Praytell why - in your view - prohibit the mother a legal right to remove a morally subjacent, unwanted entity from her own body?
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
If the mother holds the superior moral position...why not the legal one as well? Praytell why - in your view - prohibit the mother a legal right to remove a morally subjacent, unwanted entity from her own body?

Where you at Oz?
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally Posted by Rusha
The surgical procedure of abortion is ALWAYS done with the sole intention of killing the unborn baby. The goal should always be to save both the mother and the child.


What was your and Aaron's "goal" when it came to voting for pro abortion Presidential candidates who ran on pro abortion platforms in the 2012 election Sandy?

http://www.ontheissues.org/social/barack_obama_abortion.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Gary_Johnson_Abortion.htm
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
Originally Posted by Rusha
The surgical procedure of abortion is ALWAYS done with the sole intention of killing the unborn baby. The goal should always be to save both the mother and the child.

Conservatives wouldn't care for that ....the child's medical costs would be too expensive...they're pro-life only if it's pro-bottom-line.
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What was your and Aaron's "goal"

IF you were truly anti-abortion, your priority would not be going out of your way to trash other anti-abortion advocates.

Besides ... shouldn't you be focusing on your gay thread?
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
What was your and Aaron's "goal"


IF you were truly anti-abortion, your priority would not be going out of your way to trash other anti-abortion advocates.

But how can you vote for the most pro abortion President ever and still call yourself anti abortion Sandy? Inquiring minds needz sta know.

Besides ... shouldn't you be focusing on your gay thread?

The movements are one in the same.

Why Are There Always Rainbow Flags At Pro-Abortion Rallies?
http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Youth_Blog&id=26
 
Top