How would you feel?

[Josheb]

Forcing someone to continue a pregnancy when they have no wish to do so is unjustifiable, whatever their reasons and whatever the circumstances which caused them to become pregnant. The touted justification, that it preserves the life of the unborn, is insufficient, clearly so in early pregnancy.

That's just a load of hogwash.

Framing the matter in terms of "force" is unnecessary, unwarranted, and poisoning. I might just as easily replace that word wit "responsibility," or "privilege." It is their responsibility to bring that pregnancy to term. It is their privilege to do so, to bring new life into the world. The force is justifiable in light of the human life inherent in the pregnancy. There are literally scores of laws preventing people from killing other humans; no one has a right to kill the human life in an unwanted pregnancy.

The touted justification, that it preserves the life of the unborn, is insufficient, clearly so in early pregnancy.

Yep, and that is a valid justification.

It becomes more justifiable as pregnancy progresses, for a number of reasons.

There are no degrees of justification when it comes to the unnecessary killing of a human life.

In my opinion...

Your opinion is murderously malodorous.

....the best paradigm for deciding whether an abortion is justifiable or not is to consider the risk to the health and well-being of the pregnant woman if the pregnancy continues.

If by "health" you mean "physical life" then I agree and have stated that very position earlier. If by "health and well-being" you mean quality of life then I thoroughly disagree; quality of life does not outweigh existence of life. This is where the pro-abortion side has long asserted and taught a fallacy. They been able to argue a false equivalence and fool some. Your, my, her quality of life does not trump another's existence of life.

Look at what else you've just done. You started out asserted the length of gestation and then switched over to the mother's quality of life.

If this is greater than the risk of the abortion procedure, then the abortion should go ahead if she wishes it. All pregnancies carry risks. In early pregnancy, chemical abortion is virtually risk free, hence abortion on demand is quite acceptable. In later pregnancy more intrusive abortion procedures entail more risk, so risks of continuing the pregnancy would need to be greater than the base risk that any pregnancy entails. A woman wanting an abortion at say 14 weeks would need to convince her doctor that her health, physical or mental, was at risk if the pregnancy continues. By 24 weeks the risk of continuing would need to be extreme, or the chances of delivering a healthy baby very slim, for abortion to be justified.

I respectfully recommend you get educated. Most miscarriages occur within the first 6 weeks of pregnancy. Less than 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage and less than 5% of them occur after 20 weeks. Similar statistics apply to other risks. What you're arguing is a case of extremes. Reasonable, rational social and legal policy is not set by argument ad absurdum.

And quality of life does not outweigh existence of life. A woman does not have a right to a speculatively "better life" over the existence of the human fetus's life. When her physical (not mental) life is at risk then the matter becomes one life or another, the existence of one life or the existence of another. Everything else attempts to make quality of life equal with the existence of life and that is a false equivalence. They are not equal.

You will notice that I do not consider the effect on the unborn foetus of abortion at any point. At least not prior to 24 weeks. That is deliberate. Until capable of surviving delivery, the foetus has no integral rights at all.

That's just hogwash and since no rationale for that opinion was provided it is unjustified hogwash. You're going to end up predicating abortion of medical science and medicine will eventually be able to help a fetus outside the womb from conception. The day that happens your line of reasoning will instantly render abortion illegal.

That is called situational ethics.

All life has a right to exist. That is what is enshrined in the US Constitution.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."​

The pro-abortion side has always attempted to pit "Life" against "the Pursuit of Happiness," but 1) they are not equal, and 2) the Constitution then stipulates how the federal government is supposed to do that and the limits it has thereof. This may be different in your country, but in the US that unborn human does in fact have a right to life and that right always and everywhere any and all questions of another's quality of life. There can be no quality of life without the existence of life. There can be no pursuit of happiness absent the existence of life.

The false equivalence has always been incorrect. From that one fallacy a plethora of others have ensued.

If she loves and cherishes her unborn child, as most women do, then so should the medical professionals looking after her, for her sake. She is the patient, not the foetus. If she wants rid, and her abortion can be justified, then her wishes should be met. This is not a wonderful or praiseworthy reality, but the alternatives are worse. Oppressing people for the sake of an early foetus is just not acceptable.

The resistance to Godwin's Law is palpable.

People's emotions change. We do not base sound social, political, and/or legal policy based on affect. Love is irrelevant. Yes, it should exist but one person's value or affection for another does not entitle or empower killing.

She is the patient, not the foetus.

I again respectfully recommend you become better informed. The patient status of a viable fetus is an essential ethical concept. Look it up. Just as a doctor can be prosecuted both criminally and civilly in the court of law for neglecting or abusing medical care that injures or kills any child-out-side-of-the-womb or adult human, so to can and should that happen when done to humans inside the womb. The fetus is the patient, along with the mother.

With respect: you have a number of factual errors in your case, and you have a number of logical fallacies therein as well. Assuming you value reason, I encourage you to reflect on the elements of your case and examine them more closely because they do not stand up to critical examination.

 

[Temujin]

You need to exert some effort and thoroughly review the studies of Dunning and Kruger. Based on your posts, you have yet to acquire a comprehensive understanding

Lol! I frequently get the feeling that you are just a parody of yourself. This is one of those times.

 

[DaGeo]

Lol! I frequently get the feeling that you are just a parody of yourself. This is one of those times.

Another myth clinger who supports the myth of evolution and abortion and one who proudly admits to being led along by his feelings

 

[BMS]

Another myth clinger who supports the myth of evolution and abortion and one who proudly admits to being led along by his feelings

and the myth that a man is a woman. its Myther Temujin

 

[Temujin]

That's just a load of hogwash.

Framing the matter in terms of "force" is unnecessary, unwarranted, and poisoning. I might just as easily replace that word wit "responsibility," or "privilege." It is their responsibility to bring that pregnancy to term. It is their privilege to do so, to bring new life into the world. The force is justifiable in light of the human life inherent in the pregnancy. There are literally scores of laws preventing people from killing other humans; no one has a right to kill the human life in an unwanted pregnancy.

Pardon me, but they do. That is what legal abortion means. Moral, decent people all over the world reckon it to be an essential part of civilised society. Your opinion doesn't get to overrule reality.

Yep, and that is a valid justification.

Your opinion is noted

There are no degrees of justification when it comes to the unnecessary killing of a human life.

This is factually wrong. Your own system of justice actually calls it 1st degree, 2nd degree, etc.

Your opinion is murderously malodorous.

Nevertheless, I am as entitled to it as you are to yours.

If by "health" you mean "physical life" then I agree and have stated that very position earlier. If by "health and well-being" you mean quality of life then I thoroughly disagree; quality of life does not outweigh existence of life. This is where the pro-abortion side has long asserted and taught a fallacy. They been able to argue a false equivalence and fool some. Your, my, her quality of life does not trump another's existence of life.

When I say health and well-being, that's what I mean. It's a well understood phrase. A woman who does not want to compromise or damage her health and wellbeing is entitled to take steps to prevent that happening. Including abortion.

I respectfully recommend you get educated. Most miscarriages occur within the first 6 weeks of pregnancy. Less than 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage and less than 5% of them occur after 20 weeks. Similar statistics apply to other risks. What you're arguing is a case of extremes. Reasonable, rational social and legal policy is not set by argument ad absurdum.

Deliberately or not, you misunderstand me. I'm not talking about risk of miscarriage, but risk to the woman. Women die in childbirth and from complications in pregnancy. Having an abortion is much safer than not having one, for any woman, in early pregnancy. In women who are vulnerable, there are additional risks. As pregnancy progresses, the procedures needed to terminate it become more risky for the woman to the point were having an abortion is riskier than continuing the pregnancy. UK law has determined that this point is reached at 24 weeks. Beyond this point, abortion is not normally permitted.

And quality of life does not outweigh existence of life. A woman does not have a right to a speculatively "better life" over the existence of the human fetus's life. When her physical (not mental) life is at risk then the matter becomes one life or another, the existence of one life or the existence of another. Everything else attempts to make quality of life equal with the existence of life and that is a false equivalence. They are not equal.

Sorry, but again you are wrong. The unborn child is not considered at all. If the woman chooses to prioritise her unborn child over herself that is fine. If she chooses not to, that's fine too. That is what choice means. Her health and well-being, which includes her mental health, is what is supported in an abortion procedure. The life of the unborn is not important. Sorry. You may think that it is, but your opinion does not reality make.

That's just hogwash and since no rationale for that opinion was provided it is unjustified hogwash. You're going to end up predicating abortion of medical science and medicine will eventually be able to help a fetus outside the womb from conception. The day that happens your line of reasoning will instantly render abortion illegal.

Firstly, I have given you plenty of rationale. Secondly, should medicine advance that far, I would be as happy as anyone. Assuming the technology was available to all I would be content to strike down the by then unnecessary abortion laws.

That is called situational ethics.

And?

All life has a right to exist. That is what is enshrined in the US Constitution.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."​

The pro-abortion side has always attempted to pit "Life" against "the Pursuit of Happiness," but 1) they are not equal, and 2) the Constitution then stipulates how the federal government is supposed to do that and the limits it has thereof. This may be different in your country, but in the US that unborn human does in fact have a right to life and that right always and everywhere any and all questions of another's quality of life. There can be no quality of life without the existence of life. There can be no pursuit of happiness absent the existence of life.

The false equivalence has always been incorrect. From that one fallacy a plethora of others have ensued.

Sadly, I don't care what the US Constitution says. It was written by men. Rights are granted by, and taken away by human beings. Saying that such and such a right is "unalienable" means nothing in practice. Besides, you have not shown that these rights apply to the unborn (which they currently don't) or that the Founders intended them to.

[QUOTEyPeople's emotions change. We do not base sound social, political, and/or legal policy based on affect. Love is irrelevant. Yes, it should exist but one person's value or affection for another does not entitle or empower killing. [/QUOTE] Who says it does?

I again respectfully recommend you become better informed. The patient status of a viable fetus is an essential ethical concept. Look it up. Just as a doctor can be prosecuted both criminally and civilly in the court of law for neglecting or abusing medical care that injures or kills any child-out-side-of-the-womb or adult human, so to can and should that happen when done to humans inside the womb. The fetus is the patient, along with the mother.

I think you will find that this is only the case if in accordance with the mother's wishes. I know your law is slightly different, and more muddled than UK law, but here it is quite clear. Someone who damages the foetus against the will of the woman is charged with bodily harm, against her. The foetus cannot be a victim of crime and is not considered a person in law.

With respect: you have a number of factual errors in your case, and you have a number of logical fallacies therein as well. Assuming you value reason, I encourage you to reflect on the elements of your case and examine them more closely because they do not stand up to critical examination.

With respect, you have mistaken your opinions and fervent beliefs about what reality should be, with what reality actually is. The current reality is that abortion is legal, that a woman can choose to abort her pregnancy, resulting in the death of her unborn child, if she chooses to do so. This situation comes about because the majority of the people want it to be, consider it to be both moral and reasonable, and will fight to preserve it. Your earnest declarations of right and wrong don't cut the mustard. Your accusations of logical error, are themselves erroneous. You will need to do much better to convince anyone.

 

[BMS]

Temujin, fetus creatures and pixies and gender identity ideologies are not reality. Wake up from your dream

 

[Josheb]

That's just hogwash and since no rationale for that opinion was provided it is unjustified hogwash.

This is factually wrong. Your own system of justice actually calls it 1st degree, 2nd degree, etc.

lol!!!!

That would be hilarious if we weren't attempting to discuss the killing of unborn humans. The degrees involved in laws like first degree murder, second degree murder, etc. have nothing to do with the age of the murdered victim, nor that individual's history, faculties, or place in society. It is all murder. You've argued another fallacy.

You will notice that I do not consider the effect on the unborn foetus of abortion at any point. At least not prior to 24 weeks. That is deliberate. Until capable of surviving delivery, the foetus has no integral rights at all.

The first clause is contradicted by the second. What you are saying is the human fetus should not be considered prior to 24 weeks. Stop saying you don't consider the fetus when you in fact do: you ask, "Is it 24 weeks old or not?" If younger than 24 weeks then it should not be considered and can be killed. If older then 24 weeks then because it could survive outside of the womb it cannot be killed."

Deliberately or not, you misunderstand me. I'm not talking about risk of miscarriage, but risk to the woman. Women die in childbirth and from complications in pregnancy.

Deliberately or not, you misunderstand me. I did understand you PERFECTLY. I used the example of miscarriage to demonstrate the small portion of circumstance to which your argument applies. ALL risks to mother AND child are small. Risk to mother is NOT a justification for sound policy because it does not apply to all or most abortions. You are arguing a fallacy of extremes. There were more than 600,000 human fetuses killed last year in the US and less than 6,000 of them involved lethal risk to mother.

I will give you those 6,000 examples if you will join me in opposing the other 594,000 other killings.

Argumentum ad absurdum is not a rational basis for sound legal policy. Deliberately or not, your dissent did not address the salient point.

And?

And rights are not situational.

 

[Josheb]

Firstly, I have given you plenty of rationale

No, you have not. Your post(s) was filed with logical fallacies. I have endeavored to make note of them and label them accordingly so that you will look at them. Here is a case in point:

When I say health and well-being, that's what I mean. It's a well understood phrase. A woman who does not want to compromise or damage her health and wellbeing is entitled to take steps to prevent that happening. Including abortion.

Those two sentences contain two fallacies, a false equivalence and an ambiguity.

Quality of life is not equal to existence of life. That woman would have not "health and well-being" if she was not alive. Her health and well-being are necessarily and inescapably predicated upon her existence of life. Existence of life and quality of life are not equal measures. Her quality of life is not equal to the human fetus' existence of life.

The term "health and well-being" is subjective, and as such can be made to mean anything. It often is used in such a manner. Your argument could be applied to her choice not to get pregnant in the first place: don't put herself at risk = don't get pregnant in the first place. Your argument leads to many slippery slopes, such as prosecution of the woman who put herself at risk of her own health and well-being at government expense. Your argument could be used to justify the legalization of mass sterilization let's prevent women from putting themselves at risk! It is NOT a well-understood phrase.

Pardon me, but they do. That is what legal abortion means. Moral, decent people all over the world reckon it to be an essential part of civilised society. Your opinion doesn't get to overrule reality.

Your opinion is noted

Firstly, I have given you plenty of rationale.

The evidence proves otherwise. Fallacies like false equivalences and arguments from extremes abound in the case you've presented and you are not addressing them They are being avoided. Case in point:

Secondly, should medicine advance that far, I would be as happy as anyone. Assuming the technology was available to all I would be content to strike down the by then unnecessary abortion laws.

You've not addressed the point: medicine's ability to aid a fetus to live outside of the womb is not an objective measure for the law.

Sadly, I don't care what the US Constitution says. It was written by men. Rights are granted by, and taken away by human beings. Saying that such and such a right is "unalienable" means nothing in practice. Besides, you have not shown that these rights apply to the unborn (which they currently don't) or that the Founders intended them to.

Well, first, Whether in the US, UK, or elsewhere we are talking about the rule of law. If you don't believe in the rule of law just let me know and I will move along because I do not trade posts with known fools when they make known their foolishness. There is no absolute right to abortion in the law. There is no absolute right to privacy upon which the abortion laws were justified. Neither is their an absolute right to one's body anywhere encoded in the law. That is true in the US as well the UK.

There is, however, a right to life and it is that right to life upon which all else is predicated.

Firstly, I have given you plenty of rationale.

No, what you've done is post rationalizations.

Arguments based on flawed premises are flawed arguments and the case you have presented has numerous logical fallacies (as I have listed them). That is not my opinion; it is objectively verifiable fact. You and anyone and everyone can look up the statistics about maternal risk and abortion and verify the argument ad absurdum you posted. You can do that. You can and should do that. If and when you do that you will realize the fallacious nature of that argument and hopefully discard it because it is an objectively fallacious argument!

You can do that with every single one of the fallacies I noted.

But you haven't.



Fundamentally, the existence of life is preeminent and all other aspects of both reason and the law are predicated upon that. That is an objectively verifiable fact. You have not provided plenty of rationale for avoiding that fact. You have in fact gone on record stating you do not regard the life of the fetal human in any way unless it is older than 24 weeks AND acknowledged the situational and subjective nature of that measure. You have not presented a rationale case for abortion.

Start with the existence of life and work from there. If you do that then you'll find elective abortion is not sound political, legal, or social policy.

 

[Temujin]

lol!!!!

That would be hilarious if we weren't attempting to discuss the killing of unborn humans. The degrees involved in laws like first degree murder, second degree murder, etc. have nothing to do with the age of the murdered victim, nor that individual's history, faculties, or place in society. It is all murder. You've argued another fallacy.

Don't be ridiculous. We are talking about varying culpability, not the age of the victim. And no, abortion is not murder.

The first clause is contradicted by the second. What you are saying is the human fetus should not be considered prior to 24 weeks. Stop saying you don't consider the fetus when you in fact do: you ask, "Is it 24 weeks old or not?" If younger than 24 weeks then it should not be considered and can be killed. If older then 24 weeks then because it could survive outside of the womb it cannot be killed."

You are confusing, and this may be my fault, my personal views with those of the law where I live. The law takes no account of the foetus at all, but effectively bans abortion post 24 weeks because of the risk to the mother. My personal view, and this may have been in the minds of those who drafted the law, is that abortion should not be legal once the foetus could survive birth. Which is also around 24 weeks.

Deliberately or not, you misunderstand me. I did understand you PERFECTLY. I used the example of miscarriage to demonstrate the small portion of circumstance to which your argument applies. ALL risks to mother AND child are small. Risk to mother is NOT a justification for sound policy because it does not apply to all or most abortions. You are arguing a fallacy of extremes. There were more than 600,000 human fetuses killed last year in the US and less than 6,000 of them involved lethal risk to mother.

All risk to the mother is small, but not absent. Risk to the mother of having an abortion is tiny compared with the risk of continuing pregnancy, even if that risk is itself small. You should also note the figures for child mortality, prenatal and perinatal deaths in your country. They are abnormally high, and growing, as I believe are deaths of women due to pregnancy and childbirth. Medicine is about managing risk, and even small risks involve deaths, sometimes a great many deaths. Not considering risks when determining public policy would be irresponsible.

I will give you those 6,000 examples if you will join me in opposing the other 594,000 other killings.

The 6000 is more than I expected to be honest. The others all involved risk to health and welfare, albeit not lethal risk. They should be permitted also, within reasonable restrictions.

Argumentum ad absurdum is not a rational basis for sound legal policy. Deliberately or not, your dissent did not address the salient point.[/QUOTE] Which is?

And rights are not situational.

Now that is ridiculous! All rights, with the exception of freedom from torture, are situational. You come up with any right you like, and I will come up with a situation where it doesn't apply. The right to a fair trial is possibly another exception, but then tell that to the inmates at Guantanamo.

 

[Temujin]

No, you have not. Your post(s) was filed with logical fallacies. I have endeavored to make note of them and label them accordingly so that you will look at them. Here is a case in point:

Those two sentences contain two fallacies, a false equivalence and an ambiguity.

Quality of life is not equal to existence of life. That woman would have not "health and well-being" if she was not alive. Her health and well-being are necessarily and inescapably predicated upon her existence of life. Existence of life and quality of life are not equal measures. Her quality of life is not equal to the human fetus' existence of life.

Very true. It is far more important. The existence of life of the foetus is of no consequence at all. That is why you are getting into a logical mess. You are applying value to something that has no value other than that which the woman herself puts on it.

The term "health and well-being" is subjective, and as such can be made to mean anything. It often is used in such a manner. Your argument could be applied to her choice not to get pregnant in the first place: don't put herself at risk = don't get pregnant in the first place. Your argument leads to many slippery slopes, such as prosecution of the woman who put herself at risk of her own health and well-being at government expense. Your argument could be used to justify the legalization of mass sterilization let's prevent women from putting themselves at risk! It is NOT a well-understood phrase. T/QUOTE] Except that it is a phrase which appears both in law courts and in legislation. Of course it needs interpretation. That's what lawyers, judges as and juries do. And other professionals, such as doctors.

The evidence proves otherwise. Fallacies like false equivalences and arguments from extremes abound in the case you've presented and you are not addressing them They are being avoided. Case in point:

You've not addressed the point: medicine's ability to aid a fetus to live outside of the womb is not an objective measure for the law.

You brought up this hypothetical scenario and I responded to it honestly. There is no current prospect of sustaining a pregnancy ex utero, so it is hardly surprising that it isn't considered in current law.

Well, first, Whether in the US, UK, or elsewhere we are talking about the rule of law. If you don't believe in the rule of law just let me know and I will move along because I do not trade posts with known fools when they make known their foolishness.

I have served as both a police officer and as a magistrate.
I have also served in the prison service and have dispensed military justice while in the army. I have no problem with the rule of law.

There is no absolute right to abortion in the law. There is no absolute right to privacy upon which the abortion laws were justified. Neither is their an absolute right to one's body anywhere encoded in the law. That is true in the US as well the UK.

There is, however, a right to life and it is that right to life upon which all else is predicated.

There is no absolute right to life in the UK, and even less right to life in the US. Please learn what "absolute right" means. The right to life in both countries, and indeed in every country I can think of, is qualified. One of the qualifications req is that you are born.

Arguments based on flawed premises are flawed arguments and the case you have presented has numerous logical fallacies (as I have listed them). That is not my opinion; it is objectively verifiable fact. You and anyone and everyone can look up the statistics about maternal risk and abortion and verify the argument ad absurdum you posted. You can do that. You can and should do that. If and when you do that you will realize the fallacious nature of that argument and hopefully discard it because it is an objectively fallacious argument!

And yet, it is not. Between 2013 and 2018, pregnancy related deaths in the USA were 17.8 per 100,000. Abortion related deaths in the same period were 0.5 per 100,000. Pregnancy is riskier than abortion. Fact.

You can do that with every single one of the fallacies I noted.

But you haven't.

Show them to be shambolic misunderstanding on your part? But I have.

Fundamentally, the existence of life is preeminent and all other aspects of both reason and the law are predicated upon that.

In your opinion. Which on this subject is faulty.

That is an objectively verifiable fact.

It is objectively verifiable to be false.

You have not provided plenty of rationale for avoiding that fact. You have in fact gone on record stating you do not regard the life of the fetal human in any way unless it is older than 24 weeks AND acknowledged the situational and subjective nature of that measure. You have not presented a rationale case for abortion.

Start with the existence of life and work from there. If you do that then you'll find elective abortion is not sound political, legal, or social policy.

You need to grasp the fact that all rights, including the right to life are situational. That the right to life of the foetus currently doesn't exist, indeed it never has existed, and that reality doesn't fit either your opinion or slogans like "inalienable rights".

 

[BMS]

Don't be ridiculous. We are talking about varying culpability, not the age of the victim. And no, abortion is not murder.

You are confusing, and this may be my fault, my personal views with those of the law where I live. The law takes no account of the foetus at all, but effectively bans abortion post 24 weeks because of the risk to the mother. My personal view, and this may have been in the minds of those who drafted the law, is that abortion should not be legal once the foetus could survive birth. Which is also around 24 weeks.

All risk to the mother is small, but not absent. Risk to the mother of having an abortion is tiny compared with the risk of continuing pregnancy, even if that risk is itself small. You should also note the figures for child mortality, prenatal and perinatal deaths in your country. They are abnormally high, and growing, as I believe are deaths of women due to pregnancy and childbirth. Medicine is about managing risk, and even small risks involve deaths, sometimes a great many deaths. Not considering risks when determining public policy would be irresponsible.

The 6000 is more than I expected to be honest. The others all involved risk to health and welfare, albeit not lethal risk. They should be permitted also, within reasonable restrictions.

Argumentum ad absurdum is not a rational basis for sound legal policy. Deliberately or not, your dissent did not address the salient point.

Abortion fits the definition of murder where abortion is illegal. That was your beef about it. The unborn offspring is a human being because its the offspring of the human being. You just wont accept the evidence and that attitude is bad for society

 

[Temujin]

No, you have not. Your post(s) was filed with logical fallacies. I have endeavored to make note of them and label them accordingly so that you will look at them. Here is a case in point:

Those two sentences contain two fallacies, a false equivalence and an ambiguity.

Quality of life is not equal to existence of life. That woman would have not "health and well-being" if she was not alive. Her health and well-being are necessarily and inescapably predicated upon her existence of life. Existence of life and quality of life are not equal measures. Her quality of life is not equal to the human fetus' existence of life.

The term "health and well-being" is subjective, and as such can be made to mean anything. It often is used in such a manner. Your argument could be applied to her choice not to get pregnant in the first place: don't put herself at risk = don't get pregnant in the first place. Your argument leads to many slippery slopes, such as prosecution of the woman who put herself at risk of her own health and well-being at government expense. Your argument could be used to justify the legalization of mass sterilization let's prevent women from putting themselves at risk! It is NOT a well-understood phrase.

The evidence proves otherwise. Fallacies like false equivalences and arguments from extremes abound in the case you've presented and you are not addressing them They are being avoided. Case in point:

You've not addressed the point: medicine's ability to aid a fetus to live outside of the womb is not an objective measure for the law.

Well, first, Whether in the US, UK, or elsewhere we are talking about the rule of law. If you don't believe in the rule of law just let me know and I will move along because I do not trade posts with known fools when they make known their foolishness. There is no absolute right to abortion in the law. There is no absolute right to privacy upon which the abortion laws were justified. Neither is their an absolute right to one's body anywhere encoded in the law. That is true in the US as well the UK.

There is, however, a right to life and it is that right to life upon which all else is predicated.

No, what you've done is post rationalizations.

Arguments based on flawed premises are flawed arguments and the case you have presented has numerous logical fallacies (as I have listed them). That is not my opinion; it is objectively verifiable fact. You and anyone and everyone can look up the statistics about maternal risk and abortion and verify the argument ad absurdum you posted. You can do that. You can and should do that. If and when you do that you will realize the fallacious nature of that argument and hopefully discard it because it is an objectively fallacious argument!

You can do that with every single one of the fallacies I noted.

But you haven't.



Fundamentally, the existence of life is preeminent and all other aspects of both reason and the law are predicated upon that. That is an objectively verifiable fact. You have not provided plenty of rationale for avoiding that fact. You have in fact gone on record stating you do not regard the life of the fetal human in any way unless it is older than 24 weeks AND acknowledged the situational and subjective nature of that measure. You have not presented a rationale case for abortion.

Start with the existence of life and work from there. If you do that then you'll find elective abortion is not sound political, legal, or social policy.

I have replied to this, and messed up the formatting. If you cannot follow what I posted, please let me know and I will redo. Apologies.

 

[Josheb]

Don't be ridiculous.

I'm not

We are talking about varying culpability, not the age of the victim.

No, I am not. The fact you don't understand that s a problem and it's a problem on your side of this discussion. Think it through because something very important to the topic is being missed.

And no, abortion is not murder.

I have not used the word "murder" once in reference to abortion. I used it in reference to your assertion of degrees of unjustification and "1st degree, 2nd degree, etc." laws. The law does not make degrees of unjustification or justification. Your original claim was false. The law does not make degrees of justification for unjustified killing. That is self-contradictory and thereby self-refuting.

It is just one of many rationalizations posing as rational rationale found in your post.

• The fetus is a human life.
• Abortion kills.
• Abortion kills a human life.
• The existence of life is more significant than any quality of life for many reasons but preeminent among them is because the latter is predicated upon the former and there is absolutely no way around that. Attempts to draw equivalencies between the two are always and everywhere false equivalencies.
• Asserting various statistical extremes does not change the above. What is does is create another fallacy.

.

I have replied to this, and messed up the formatting. If you cannot follow what I posted, please let me know and I will redo. Apologies.

I read it. I saw the formatting problem. I understood the argument.

It was more fallacy.

Because it was more of the same and sufficient evidence of already-existing fallacy has been provided chose to ignore it. The facts in evidence are you've asserted a variety of logical fallacies. One would be sufficient warrant for change and your posts contain several.

You really need to do more research. Almost three times more women de from abortion in the US than die from being pregnant. That number quadruples in less developed countries. Even with the existence of "safe" "medical" abortions, abortion is dangerous and can prove lethal. Look it up. We've reduced the risk but it has not been extinguished. Abortion is not natural. Pregnancy is. Abortion is an artificial disruption of an otherwise healthy and natural process. You tried to leverage the risks of pregnancy to the mother, but that risk is statistically very small. Not only is it very small in comparison to all pregnancies but it is also a minority in comparison to the risks of abortion! In other words, not only have you asserted an argument from extremes, but if the exact same argument (lethal risk to mother) were applied to abortion you'd be refuting your own position!



When the fallacies are removed and the logic improved you will discover two things: 1) prolife is the more reasonable and rational position, and 2) the pro-abortion position is ideological in entirety.

And if you really do value life itself, not merely certain qualities of life, then apply that value consistently.





Because the exchange is becoming repetitive, I am moving on. Appreciate your time and patience.

 

[Temujin]

I'm not

No, I am not. The fact you don't understand that s a problem and it's a problem on your side of this discussion. Think it through because something very important to the topic is being missed.


I have not used the word "murder" once in reference to abortion. I used it in reference to your assertion of degrees of unjustification and "1st degree, 2nd degree, etc." laws. The law does not make degrees of unjustification or justification. Your original claim was false. The law does not make degrees of justification for unjustified killing. That is self-contradictory and thereby self-refuting.

It is just one of many rationalizations posing as rational rationale found in your post.

• The fetus is a human life.
• Abortion kills.
• Abortion kills a human life.
• The existence of life is more significant than any quality of life for many reasons but preeminent among them is because the latter is predicated upon the former and there is absolutely no way around that. Attempts to draw equivalencies between the two are always and everywhere false equivalencies.
• Asserting various statistical extremes does not change the above. What is does is create another fallacy.

.

I read it. I saw the formatting problem. I understood the argument.

It was more fallacy.

Because it was more of the same and sufficient evidence of already-existing fallacy has been provided chose to ignore it. The facts in evidence are you've asserted a variety of logical fallacies. One would be sufficient warrant for change and your posts contain several.

You really need to do more research. Almost three times more women de from abortion in the US than die from being pregnant. That number quadruples in less developed countries. Even with the existence of "safe" "medical" abortions, abortion is dangerous and can prove lethal. Look it up. We've reduced the risk but it has not been extinguished. Abortion is not natural. Pregnancy is. Abortion is an artificial disruption of an otherwise healthy and natural process. You tried to leverage the risks of pregnancy to the mother, but that risk is statistically very small. Not only is it very small in comparison to all pregnancies but it is also a minority in comparison to the risks of abortion! In other words, not only have you asserted an argument from extremes, but if the exact same argument (lethal risk to mother) were applied to abortion you'd be refuting your own position!



When the fallacies are removed and the logic improved you will discover two things: 1) prolife is the more reasonable and rational position, and 2) the pro-abortion position is ideological in entirety.

And if you really do value life itself, not merely certain qualities of life, then apply that value consistently.





Because the exchange is becoming repetitive, I am moving on. Appreciate your time and patience.

No problem. Incidentally this "You really need to do more research. Almost three times more women die from abortion in the US than die from being pregnant." is untrue. I gave you the figures. Look them up. Between 2013 and 2028 for every woman that died having an abortion, over forty died as a result of pregnancy.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data on abortions (2013-2018) and live births (2013-2017, 2018)

Perhaps you should do more research.

 

[Josheb]

No problem. Incidentally this "You really need to do more research. Almost three times more women die from abortion in the US than die from being pregnant." is untrue. I gave you the figures. Look them up. Between 2013 and 2028 for every woman that died having an abortion, over forty died as a result of pregnancy.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data on abortions (2013-2018) and live births (2013-2017, 2018)

Perhaps you should do more research.

Dig deeper. That webpage considered only medical procedures by licensed and unlicensed medical providers. Half of all abortions are now chemical abortions. Complications from those procedures end up being treated at hospitals, not the original abortion-providing clinic. more than a third of all abortion providers are now chemical-only providers. Try Guttmacher instead of the CDC. It's hard to verify these stats because a woman who goes to the hospital hemorrhaging may have cause of death attributed to the hemorrhaging, not the abortion. It's the reverse of deaths attributed to COVID: if a person dies with COVID it gets recorded as a COVID-caused when it is actually a COVID-related death. Correlation is not causation. This is true of the stats related to abortion AND true of the stats related to pregnancy. Most pregnancy-related deaths are due to a pre-existing condition (such as HIV) or occur post-partum (such a PPH) and are not pregnancy-caused deaths. Most deaths due to pregnancy are also avoidable (the infection, hypertension, or hemorrhage could have been effectively treated). The same is true of abortion but less so AND elective abortion is unnecessary.

And don't forget half of the 600,000 women that died from abortion last year were female fetuses. Abortion is not pro-woman, nor pro-woman's body.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Abortion fits the definition of murder where abortion is illegal. That was your beef about it. The unborn offspring is a human being because its the offspring of the human being. You just wont accept the evidence and that attitude is bad for society

Already - and repeatedly - debunked. Abortion does not fit the definition of the word 'murder' where abortion is legal unless/until it can be determined that the fetus is a person/human being with all of the rights and responsibilities that come with that status.

 

[BMS]

Already - and repeatedly - debunked. Abortion does not fit the definition of the word 'murder' where abortion is legal unless/until it can be determined that the fetus is a person/human being with all of the rights and responsibilities that come with that status.

Not debunked because we can see it and we have logic . When abortion is illegal the rights to abort have been removed.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Not debunked because we can see it and we have logic .

Repeatedly debunked.

When abortion is illegal the rights to abort have been removed.

Which does not make it murder.

 

[BMS]

Repeatedly debunked.

Which does not make it murder.

Which makes it murder by definition.

 

[Eightcrackers]

All life has a right to exist.

Condemned criminals do not.

And rights are not situational.

Yes, they are - a criminal has a right to life unless he is sentenced to death.