Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Once again as the title of this thread states: LACK of Logic
And it's been explained again and again through many pages that there isn't exactly a lack of logic in the debate of abortion. It's the fact that everybody has a form of logic in their mind - and for issues like this, that logic cannot be swayed.
When the perceived logic of opposing views clash, we end up with a heated debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expat007
Is abortion about women's rights or fetus' rights OR is it a question of "what it means to be human"
Personally, I see abortion as a debate about many different aspects including these. I see no problem with abortion because I think that a woman should have the right to decide what is best for her body.
I also feel that just because something is "offensive" to somebody does not mean that the action should be banned. To me, this is logical. To others, my logic is not understadable.
But that's the great thing about the logical minds of all debaters. We think, feel, and act different - so our opinions and what seems logical to us is not always the same to somebody else.
And that is why we attack ideas (and not posters) and try to reason within our own minds how a person's mindset is. Then, the best of debaters will attempt to use the perceived mindset to alter the other's perception on an issue.
So in short, there is no lack of logic in any debate. There's just too many logical minds that think differently.
wow 26 weeks is a long time !! over 6 months the fetus is definitely BOTH sentient and sapient
What??? A fetus does not have the physcial capacity for either sentience or sapience at 26 weeks. It has barely begun to assemble the structures that are required by that time. So much work is yet to be done that a human brain will be only crudely functional by the time of birth. You've gone more than a little overboard with this one...
You have just given the single most nonsensical argument I've ever heard in my entire life. Not once did I ever mention that God has anything to do with this debate...in fact, I've consistently kept God out of the debate in order to use reason to better reach the secular mindset.
Well, then...you could have replied to some of the other parts. I notice you didn't. But it is good of you to simplify things in this way in order that they might be comprehensible to the secular mindset. I'm sure all who are so disadvantaged do appreciate your efforts in the matter...
In your case, apparently it can set you up in the central highlands of Oahu. Not exactly Gary, Indiana, is it. By the way, your local Planned Parenthood office can be reached at 589-1149, if you should ever need them...
Well, then...you could have replied to some of the other parts. I notice you didn't. But it is good of you to simplify things in this way in order that they might be comprehensible to the secular mindset. I'm sure all who are so disadvantaged do appreciate your efforts in the matter...
I'll re-quote myself: You have simply lied about what I've said--I see no reason to respond any further to your false claims until you offer some quotations and reason.
I don't feel like getting in another drawn out debate, wasting my time as you cannot even have a civil discussion. The fact that you cannot have civil discussions is evidenced by your lies and now your twisting of my words/intentions around--when I said that I intentionally left God out in order to use reason toreach the secular mindset, what I meant was that I would debate with you on your grounds. Bringing up a theistic argument isn't very effective at communicating with people who don't believe in God to begin with--this all has to do with the nature of presuppositions, and reaching the simplest common presupposition is necessary in have a fruitful debate. So, again my intentions were perverted.
Just to mention some of the claims of your debate:
"Meanwhile, there is no debate as to whether a zygote/fetus is human life."
This is the logical fallacy of assuring.
"Neither is there any such debate over the nature of the polyps that may be removed during a colonoscopy. Benign, innocent, living, human tissue that we routinely remove and discard. Mere status as human life is miles short of providing any basis for special protection."
A fetus that contains all the necessary genetic material to inevitably produce an old person is not analogous or to a polyp.
"You seem to be heavily into the identification of unsubstantiated claims. Let me add a couple to the list for your consideration. The existence of God is an unsubstantiated claim. The existence of souls is an unsubstantiated claim. That a soul would exist from the moment of conception is an unsubstantiated claim. (That there even is a moment of conception is an unsubstantiated claim, for that matter.) That God would be opposed to abortion is an unsubstantiated claim."
Again, these are simply lies; I never claimed any of this.
"Worse yet, none of them can ever be substantiated. As such, none of them can ever be persuasive or even pertinent in argument. Anyone is free to believe them in accordance with the dictates of his or her own conscience, but those beliefs are then restricted in their application, meaning, and relevance only to the individual who for whatever reason chooses to so believe. Those who, in accordance with the dictates of their own consciences, choose not to so believe, are free to live their entire lives without giving any credence to such supposed application, meaning, or relevance whatsoever."
This whole argument seems a little circular. You state that the above religious views are unsubstantiated (remember I never substantiated them either), with out giving substantiation for that. Then you conclude that anyone who doesn't believe such unsubstantiated claims have no responsibility for giving credence to those unsubstantiated claims.
Well duh! If they are unsubstantiated claims, then no one has any obligation to follow them! Anyway, this isn't part of my argument anyway, so as to why you brought it up in the first place is beyond me.
" Back in the world of non-dogma, there is no basis for opposing abortion."
Again, where is the argument that there is no basis. Oh, yeah, you already said that religious claims have no substantiation. This is yet again another assuring fallacy.
"There is no presumptive, convincing, or even more than barely credible secular argument against it."
Essentially, the same thing as above.
"Under the principles upon which this country was founded, there is a very powerful argument for personal autonomy, that is, the right upon maturity to guide the circumstances of one's own life. The presumptive right to decide whether to bear or not to bear children thus lies with each woman."
This does not follow. Just because the U.S. gives personal autonomy rights doesn't automatically imply that a woman has the right to decide to abort a baby, fetus or whatever you want to call it. You have no deductive argument here.
"Each woman has the right to be or not to be pregnant at her sole discretion. That right may not be compromised by another. You may neither compel nor prohibit reproduction."
Again, all we have here is an expression of opinion based on the fallacious reasoning from above. There is no "why" being answered in any of the topics you address.
Well, I think you're doing a pretty good job of sketching in for any who might have wondered over it just how the OP managed to come up with the thread title that he did. I'm sorry if you aren't able to follow the logic of my earlier posts. I think it was all pretty evident to most folks. But since you don't feel like getting into a long drawn out debate over it, and there are so many misconceptions and misconstructions in the most recent post, I'll just leave it at that.
That has to be one the poorest argument I've ever hear, and you back none of your claims with facts or reason. You are wrong on so many levels and simply can't admit that you are wrong.
-- <ainulinale> to <roaminred> in the Religion forum.
Well, I think you're doing a pretty good job of sketching in for any who might have wondered over it just how the OP managed to come up with the thread title that he did. I'm sorry if you aren't able to follow the logic of my earlier posts. I think it was all pretty evident to most folks. But since you don't feel like getting into a long drawn out debate over it, and there are so many misconceptions and misconstructions in the most recent post, I'll just leave it at that.
That has to be one the poorest argument I've ever hear, and you back none of your claims with facts or reason. You are wrong on so many levels and simply can't admit that you are wrong.
-- <ainulinale> to <roaminred> in the Religion forum.
How eerily familiar...
Go ahead then, if I misconstrued your claims then please correct me, I would love for you to give your reasons...
But, again, I'm at least making an argument and analyzing your words, not simply making stuff up or offering no logical reason behind my beliefs. If I've misconstrued your arguments then tell us how I misconstrued them...
But I've changed my mind, I would love to hear more of your empty, irrational, unsupported, fallacious claims without a shred of deductive reasoning...it's hilarious. And I'm not saying that I'm perfectly logical in all my arguments, but you have not addressed any of the presuppositions of my points.
Last edited by ainulinale; 03-18-2008 at 07:51 PM..
Mere status as human life is miles short of providing any basis for special protection.
I guess I just really noticed this...if you are truly saying that being human doesn't guarantee us the right to life, then your beliefs are far more asinine then I ever could have imagined. Your human, why do we give you rights then? Why is it wrong for me to kill you? But how dare we be so selfish and barbaric as to demand that human beings have the right to live, I mean seriously, a woman who chose to have sex fully understanding that they could get pregnant has rights to simply end that life because its a burden for a whole nine months...how dare we be so selfish.
What was this talk about our country giving rights to human beings?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
