How would you feel?
- Thread starter romishpopishorganist
- Start date
Josheb
Well-known member
Am I to understand your post to imply abortion is a death sentence?
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
I knew you'd go there.
My point was that the right to life is not inviolable in your paradigm.
You make an exception, despite professing not to.
With the definition is unlawful premeditated killing of another human being, when abortion is unlawful it fits the definition.
Josheb
Well-known member
If that knowledge was in fact possessed beforehand and that isn't an accurate presentation of the point analogously being asserted, then the post should have provided content precluding that rendering. An implicit comparison between abortion and capital punishment was asserted. It is reasonable to ask about that comparison for the sake f clarification. Not clarifying the point is avoidant.
Of course, if my post was correct then the accuracy should be acknowledged: a comparison between capital punishment and abortion was asserted. Was that the intent? f not then clarify the earlier post so as to preclude further misunderstanding because you are the best person to assert your position. and there's absolutely nothing wrong with asking for clarification.
Either way, the response should not be an avoidant attempt to make this about me. That's just lame. Keep the posts topically about the posts and not the posters.
What is my "paradigm"? At no point in this entire op have I ever asserted the right to life was "inviolable," and have in fact posted at least one exception, so the facts in evidence are a strawman was just asserted. Try not to do that with the next post please. Reading what I have already posted might help to avoid that mistake.
So..... since we both agree the right to life is not inviolable explain your post further because fetal humans are not comparable to felonious murders who have violated the social contract, or otherwise knowingly violated others' right to life and thereby demonstrated a willingness to violate others' violable right to life
.Am I to understand your post to imply abortion is a death sentence?
Simple question. Deserves a direct answer..... especially if the question was anticipated beforehand.
"Facts" not (yet) in evidence are being asserted and attempts to shift the onus based on strawmen are fallacious.
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
"Thou shalt not kill" was cited in opposition to abortion.If that knowledge was in fact possessed beforehand and that isn't an accurate presentation of the point analogously being asserted, then the post should have provided content precluding that rendering. An implicit comparison between abortion and capital punishment was asserted. It is reasonable to ask about that comparison for the sake f clarification. Not clarifying the point is avoidant.
Of course, if my post was correct then the accuracy should be acknowledged: a comparison between capital punishment and abortion was asserted. Was that the intent? f not then clarify the earlier post so as to preclude further misunderstanding because you are the best person to assert your position. and there's absolutely nothing wrong with asking for clarification.
Either way, the response should not be an avoidant attempt to make this about me. That's just lame. Keep the posts topically about the posts and not the posters.
What is my "paradigm"? At no point in this entire op have I ever asserted the right to life was "inviolable," and have in fact posted at least one exception, so the facts in evidence are a strawman was just asserted. Try not to do that with the next post please. Reading what I have already posted might help to avoid that mistake.
So..... since we both agree the right to life is not inviolable explain your post further because fetal humans are not comparable to felonious murders who have violated the social contract, or otherwise knowingly violated others' right to life and thereby demonstrated a willingness to violate others' violable right to life
Am I to understand your post to imply abortion is a death sentence?
Simple question. Deserves a direct answer..... especially if the question was anticipated beforehand.
"Facts" not (yet) in evidence are being asserted and attempts to shift the onus based on strawmen are fallacious.
Why is this not an opposition to
capital punishment,
war,
self-defence or
assisted suicide
?
Josheb
Well-known member
Not by me.
Second time a strawman has been argued.
When the equivalence between any of those four and abortion is provided, then I'll entertain the case for that comparison but until then all four are false equivalences. Lacking any such equivalence you have the answer to your own question.
Make your case. Do not assume facts not in evidence.
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
Other than self-defense when someone is trying to kill you, the rest should be opposed.
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
They are perfectly accurate equivalences since all involve killing. Stop dodging.
We have no idea what you are seeing.
Already established and not refuted by you
Josheb
Well-known member
They are nether perfect nor accurate equivalences.
Capital punishment is the pre-established consequence of taking another's life. The human being killed knows this consequence exists, and they know it before they commit the act precipitating their punishment. The human fetus does not now of the law, has not broken any law, and has not taken another's life. The murderer is guilty, and the fetus is innocent. Furthermore, the murderer is presumed innocent until proven guilty, able to make defense for themselves to prove their innocent (and thereby spare their life), and the crime(s) must meet specific criteria including but not limited to intent, premeditation, and willful disregard for the victim's life. I have endeavored to stay away from such comparisons in my posts because of the rhetoric associated with calling mothers and doctors murderers, but that is the logical consequence of such comparisons.
Comparing abortion to capital punishment is woefully flawed; it is NOT a "perfectly accurate" comparison.
Assuming you mean noncombatants with the comparison to war, it is universally recognized war is a violation of the right to life. This violation of the right to life is one of the chief reasons wars should be avoided, not supported. For the combatants, they've all made a prior decision to put at risk their own life; if they are soldiers then they have done so contractually. They are also supplied with the means to defend themselves. None of this applies to the human fetus but the right to live. Therefore, comparisons with war are arguments against abortion, not for it.
Comparing abortion to capital punishment is woefully flawed; it is NOT a "perfectly accurate" comparison.
Self-defense? The fetal human is not provided an opportunity to defend itself. The prolife position is very much about defending those who cannot defend themselves. The abortionist and the woman seeking the abortion are are the instigators in a situation in which the fetus' life is put fatally at risk and without option for defense.
Comparing abortion to self-defense is woefully flawed; it is NOT a "perfectly accurate" comparison.
In the case of assisted suicide it is the human taking his/her own life making the decision and proactively acting on their own (situational) behalf to take their own behalf. No one asks the fetus if it wants to be killed (they instead make comparisons like you have to justify the killing), and the fetus is not initiating, proactively following through and collaborating with their own demise.
Comparing abortion to self-defense is woefully flawed; it is NOT a "perfectly accurate" comparison.
None of the examples asserted are equivalent. Most of them (war being the sole possible exception) are also arguments of extremes, and not normative behavior. About 45k are killed in the US are murdered in the US each year. They yearly average for abortion is about 1 million per year (it is currently down to about 600k). Suicide kills about the same amount (45k); another 2,000 can be added to that number for assisted suicides. In the last 45 years the annual average of those killed via capital punishment is about 30. In other words, all of the examples provided (again, with the possible exception of war) prove not only to be false equivalences but also argument from extremes. Furthermore, ALL of these behaviors, including war, are legally and sociologically considered deviance. Arguments from extremes are always and everywhere fallacious.
So not only is it appropriate to ask if this comparison is intended to say abortion is killing, but it is also appropriate, given the evidence of the case you've asserted, to ask if you are intentionally making an argument ad absurdum. We might also ask if you mean to say a pregnant woman and the fetal human child are at war, or that the fetal human is having war waged against it by the abortionist, the abortion industry (a $5 billion industry in the US), and/or the federal or state governments.
In other words, there are quite a lot of problems asserting those statistical, legal (and in some cases moral), normatively deviant behaviors as equivalences. As I noted with another poster: these are not rationales for abortion; they are rationalizations for abortion.
The fetal human has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The pregnant woman also has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The fundamental argument in the abortion debate is about whether the right to life is subordinate or superior to the right to pursue happiness. Because there cannot be any pursuit of happiness, or pursuit of a "quality of life" absent the existence of life, the right to life is necessarily preeminent to quality of life. Arguments from extremes (whether they be statistical, legal, or moral extremes) are logically fallacious and therefore not a reasonable rational basis for sound legal/social policy.
Just think about it.
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
That list consisted of four independent examples of justified killing.
The point was not to compare/contrast abortion to those examples, but whether or not abortion should be added to the list.
I think it should; you don't.
Only after it is born and/or as long as the mother consents to carry it.
Per the (current) law.
Josheb
Well-known member
Moving the goal posts. You plainly, clearly stated for all to read these examples were in fact equivalent.
Now you are changing your argument and pretending the point was something entirely different. You're trying to prove abortion is a justified killing when it is not a justified killing, and all the comparative examples asserted prove not to be "perfectly accurate" equivalences. The entire attempt is false equivalence using examples of extremes that completely ignore the preeminence of the right to life.
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
No, I didn't.
Somebody else did.
There is no way to prove that either way.
It's opinion vs opinion.
There is no "justification-o-meter" that we can point at it, or at anything else, for that matter.
Josheb
Well-known member
Then the onus is still on you to answer the questions asked and explain the use of the "condemned criminal" example previously assert. Now, since I have already partially addressed that matter, the opportunity to clarify and explain that comparison can presumably avoid the obvious mistakes in reasoning already addressed.
The facts in evidence prove otherwise.
But you are invited to explain how any quality of life could possibly occur absent the existence of life.
AFTER you explain the meaning of the original assertion comparing "condemned criminals" with aborted humans.
Otherwise, the existence of life is preeminent to any quality thereof. That's not a matter of opinion.
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
It's not my job to defend somebody else's comparisons.
Demonstrate objectively that the unborn's right to life trumps the pregnant woman's right not to have to carry it.
It can't.
But I reject your assertion that the unborn has the right to life and to live inside a non-consenting woman.
And so does the law.