- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Planned Parenthood keeps saying 3% of their income is from abortions
Posted on 2/2/17 at 12:41 pm to ballscaster
Posted on 2/2/17 at 12:41 pm to ballscaster
quote:Hey, if your answer doesn't jive with the question, you can call it whatever you want but it is consistent with a reading comprehension problem. It's also consistent with someone who is willfully twisting words to ignore an argument or to misrepresent someone, so I'll leave it up to you to state which it is.
Oof. Classic weak internet comeback with no material.
quote:You have a strange definition of "owning" given what you've said so far. You have admitted twice to not even reading my responses. Sounds like you're "owning" yourself. I have made a defense and you have ignored it (by your own admission). I don't know how you can continue to claim that the position is "indefensible" when you refuse to entertain any defense of it.
More reading comprehension problems with you. We've already covered this. I'm not trolling you; I'm owning you. Your idea that abortion is murder is indefensible, hence your unwillingness to answer the hypothetical about the house fire.
Answering hypotheticals is a useless endeavor because they are simply that; hypothetical. There is nothing to be gained from it, especially in this case, as you would use any answer against me, like I said in my initial post on it (which you admitted that you didn't read): "In reality, there isn't a "right" answer because the hypothetical is meant to show how backwards or cruel the pro-lifer is regardless of the choice. Choose the born child and you are a hypocrite. Choose the embryos and you are a monster."
quote:If you want to tune me out, that's fine, but it makes no sense to tune someone out and then continue to argue with them. It weakens your own arguments because you continue to ask questions that have already been answered and make accusations that have already been refuted.
You're lying again. Not buying it. You get tuned out when you talk like this. You're reducing your accusation of "murder" to "convenience," exposing your stance as dishonest.
In response to my reduction: I am not reducing anything and it seems that you failed yet again to comprehend something that is easy to understand. I said, "Currently, she'll do whatever she pleases under the law. That's why the discussion continues and why elections matter. Getting that ability to kill an unborn child out of convenience needs to be outlawed, regardless of what she or anyone else wants. To the person with adequate reading skills, I was saying that "convenience" is not a sufficient reason to end a human life, therefore it's necessary to continue to push representatives to continue to fight the battle to make such a thing illegal. It's murder from a moral sense (and from God's law, which people like you don't care about), but it isn't murder in the eyes of the state. That's why continued efforts to get it made illegal is necessary, so that it can be called--legally--what it is: murder.
quote:What you said was: "Then try to bend the laws of physics so that our government can do that without violating Liberty". The obvious implication was that the government would have to break physics (not sure how that is a necessity) to stop abortion without violating liberty. Liberty is freedom to act within society as imposed or protected by the government. You have liberty to be naked in your home. You have no liberty to be naked at a school in front children. Likewise, there is no liberty for you to kill someone who isn't trying to do you grave bodily harm. Protecting the lives of innocent unborn children would expand protection of life and not violate liberty because there would be no liberty to kill an innocent person just as there isn't one now.
Not what I said.
quote:What part of "there is no liberty to murder" is a lie?
There you go again, lying.
quote:Care to explain how outlawing abortion does not expand the protection of life to the unborn? You keep calling me a liar. I do not think that means what you think that means.
Another lie.
Foo, you are a liar
This post was edited on 2/2/17 at 12:58 pm
1
Posted on 2/2/17 at 2:03 pm to FooManChoo
quote:Because we both know you'd pick the kid over the jar of embryos, but you refuse to say that because you would be admitting that your insane idea that abortion is murder is dishonest. This isn't "Do you still beat your wife?" This is you saying that an embryo has the same rights as a toddler, which is to say that in the hypothetical, the jar of 40 embryos is 40x more important than the toddler, and you know that your "murder" accusation falls apart if it isn't.
. I don't know how you can continue to claim that the position is "indefensible" when you refuse to entertain any defense of it.
So you can't admit it because then you don't get to call abortion murder and talk about "convenience" anymore.
quote:You are a hypocrite. The only solution to that is to admit that abortion is different from murder and knock it off with that nonsense. Continuing with this silly "murder" campaign is nothing but hypocrisy.
Answering hypotheticals is a useless endeavor because they are simply that; hypothetical. There is nothing to be gained from it, especially in this case, as you would use any answer against me, like I said in my initial post on it (which you admitted that you didn't read): "In reality, there isn't a "right" answer because the hypothetical is meant to show how backwards or cruel the pro-lifer is regardless of the choice. Choose the born child and you are a hypocrite. Choose the embryos and you are a monster."
quote:Sorry, but the government isn't allowed up a woman's snatch because they heard a coat hanger hit the floor. Nobody's allowed in there unless she says so. The word for violating this simple truth is rape. Your argument is so nonsensical that you are advocating for the government to rape women. That shite is the kind of thing fit for the Sudan, but we don't do that here.
Protecting the lives of innocent unborn children would expand protection of life and not violate liberty because there would be no liberty to kill an innocent person just as there isn't one now.
quote:^^^Lying right there.
What part of "there is no liberty to murder" is a lie?
You and I are both morally opposed to abortion, but it's obvious that your "murder" argument is based on nothing but emotion, or else the math would check out.
This post was edited on 2/2/17 at 2:05 pm
Posted on 2/2/17 at 2:55 pm to anc
#defund
Posted on 2/2/17 at 3:24 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
If confronted with a situation such as a fire where I could only save one person, the trapped 5 year or the trapped 60 year old, I can tell you with certainty that I would try to save the 5 year old first.
Agreed. And you'd presumably do so because the 5 year old has a comparatively long life in front of them, right?
The same should hold then for the fertilized eggs/5 year old comparison too, then. But it doesn't. You'd save the 5 year old in that case, too, correct? You can argue that it's an appeal to emotion, but that's intended.
quote:
Your thought experiment is based on the false premise that the fact humans will prioritize in emergency situations means the people they didn't prioritize don't have a right to life.
Again, I think you and a couple other posters are extrapolating beyond what I was intending from the analogy. I've said multiple times, the thought experiment isn't supposed to elicit the response that there is zero value to fertilized life. It's to show that comparatively fertilized life isn't equal to born life in value.
It's not arguing that fertilized life isn't worth saving.
Look, maybe for clarity:
What the thought experiment is attempting to clarify: does fertilized life hold the same qualitative value as born life.
What the thought experiment does not attempt to clarify: if fertilized life has any value, the value of fertilized life, the comparative value of born life at different ages, the comparative value of fertilized life at different stages, the legality of abortion, the morality of abortion, or anything else.
quote:
Oh. And for the record. Your thought experiment isn't new. I was using variations of that exact thought experiment 30 years ago when I was a huge pro-choicer.
?? I never claimed it was. I just said it's one I've used personally quite a bit.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 3:31 pm to ballscaster
quote:
Because we both know you'd pick the kid over the jar of embryos, but you refuse to say that because you would be admitting that your insane idea that abortion is murder is dishonest. This isn't "Do you still beat your wife?" This is you saying that an embryo has the same rights as a toddler, which is to say that in the hypothetical, the jar of 40 embryos is 40x more important than the toddler, and you know that your "murder" accusation falls apart if it isn't.
So you can't admit it because then you don't get to call abortion murder and talk about "convenience" anymore.
It is a dumb hypothetical. The argument contains several logical fallacies, which foo has done a pretty good job of pointing out. Again the value judgement of the mark does not negate the scientific fact that the embryo is every bit as much a human as the four year old girl.
Using your dumb logic and replacing the embryo with the 80 year old you could argue I don't value old people therefore killing them is not murder.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 3:35 pm to BlackAdam
quote:
It is a dumb hypothetical. The argument contains several logical fallacies
Can you highlight, clearly, what you think the logical fallacies of the thought experiment are as it pertains to highlighting the comparative value between fertilized life and born life?
Posted on 2/2/17 at 3:53 pm to Strophie
quote:
Can you highlight, clearly, what you think the logical fallacies of the thought experiment are as it pertains to highlighting the comparative value between fertilized life and born life?
false equivalence: rights deserved right to life are in no way negated to the actions of an individual in an emergency.
false distinction: that their is a fundamental difference between the embryo and the toddler.
Fallacy of the single cause: the mark choosing the toddler does not necessarily mean it is based on their value of the life. The decision may be made based on who would suffer more. The toddler would die in agony while the embryos would not suffer, or any other number of reasons.
Moralistic fallacy: the argument pre-supposes what the mark ought to do based on the morals of the questioner.
Proof by assertion: if the mark saves the toddler you assert they do not value the embryos.
Moral intuitions are not infallible. Imagine I was a slave holder and you were an abolitionist. I say if your barn was burning and a slave and a free man were both in it and you can only save.... If the guy chooses the free man does that somehow prove he doesn't think the slave is a person?
the fact that this is debated as a moral question evidences that pro-lifers see the embryos as people.
I could go on, but you get the point. It is a stupid argument.
This post was edited on 2/2/17 at 4:04 pm
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:06 pm to Strophie
At 6 weeks old a baby starts moving.
Can you imagine taking a tiny MOVING baby from the womb and smashing, strangling, vacuuming or puncturing it until it quits moving?
How would you sleep at night, absolutely disgusting.
Where I come from if it's moving it's alive!!
Can you imagine taking a tiny MOVING baby from the womb and smashing, strangling, vacuuming or puncturing it until it quits moving?
How would you sleep at night, absolutely disgusting.
Where I come from if it's moving it's alive!!
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:10 pm to duckdude
quote:
At 6 weeks old a baby starts moving.
Can you imagine taking a tiny MOVING baby from the womb and smashing, strangling, vacuuming or puncturing it until it quits moving?
How would you sleep at night, absolutely disgusting.
Where I come from if it's moving it's alive!!
One more time. That's outside the scope of the thought experiment. And I'm not addressing it. I'm simply comparing fertilized life to born life.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:12 pm to Strophie
quote:
One more time. That's outside the scope of the thought experiment. And I'm not addressing it. I'm simply comparing fertilized life to born life.
that is called a distinction without a difference. Another reason your thought experiment is stupid.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:15 pm to Strophie
Let's go through the mothers thought process:
I'm not ready to be a Mom
I don't want to have stretchy skin
I don't want to loose this hot body
I don't want anyone to know I got pregnant
If a house was on fire I would save a 5 year old before saving a pregnant woman so that must mean there is more life value in a 5 year old than a fetus so a fetus isn't alive and I wont feel guilty for having it removed BINGO!! Get PP on the phone, hurry before I think about it any more.
Is this how it happens?
I'm not ready to be a Mom
I don't want to have stretchy skin
I don't want to loose this hot body
I don't want anyone to know I got pregnant
If a house was on fire I would save a 5 year old before saving a pregnant woman so that must mean there is more life value in a 5 year old than a fetus so a fetus isn't alive and I wont feel guilty for having it removed BINGO!! Get PP on the phone, hurry before I think about it any more.
Is this how it happens?
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:20 pm to BlackAdam
quote:
false equivalence: rights deserved right to life are in no way negated to the actions of an individual in an emergency.
Granted; though this was never intended to be implied in the first place.
quote:
false distinction: that their is a fundamental difference between the embryo and the toddler.
This is subjective, and is the crux of the entire thought experiment, so I disagree.
quote:
Fallacy of the single cause: the mark choosing the toddler does not necessarily mean it is based on their value of the life. The decision may be made based on who would suffer more. The toddler would die in agony while the embryos would not suffer, or any other number of reasons.
Granted.
quote:
Moralistic fallacy: the argument pre-supposes what the mark ought to do based on the morals of the questioner.
How does it presuppose based on my morals as the questioner? I'm not presupposing a right answer. I don't think there is a right answer. I was simply stating that my anecdotal experience is that I've never posed the question to anybody and had them choose the embryos.
quote:
Proof by assertion: if the mark saves the toddler you assert they do not value the embryos.
Incorrect. I have never personally made the assertion, nor is the assertion intended via the thought experiment, that choosing the toddler indicates that the embryos have no value. Many people are hung up on this though, apparently, so obviously I did a poor job of communicating that.
quote:
Moral intuitions are not infallible.
Of course they aren't. This thought experiment doesn't claim some ultimate truth. Like I originally said, it's simply one way that I've helped to try and rationally consider the issue for myself.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:23 pm to Strophie
quote:
said multiple times, the thought experiment isn't supposed to elicit the response that there is zero value to fertilized life. It's to show that comparatively fertilized life isn't equal to born life in value.
I would never argue otherwise
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:23 pm to ballscaster
quote:The fact that you keep pushing this proves my point about the hypothetical being fallacious and being used as a 'gotcha' regardless of the outcome. You are taking an assumed choice of the born child to mean that I don't believe the embryos aren't as valid, alive, or whatever you want to say, because there are more of them. Such a situation in real life would do nothing but show inherent bias of an emotional reaction and does not speak at all towards the real value of both the born child and the embryos.
Because we both know you'd pick the kid over the jar of embryos, but you refuse to say that because you would be admitting that your insane idea that abortion is murder is dishonest. This isn't "Do you still beat your wife?" This is you saying that an embryo has the same rights as a toddler, which is to say that in the hypothetical, the jar of 40 embryos is 40x more important than the toddler, and you know that your "murder" accusation falls apart if it isn't.
So you can't admit it because then you don't get to call abortion murder and talk about "convenience" anymore.
Regardless of what I would or would not admit, women who choose abortion because they "aren't ready", like where they are in life and don't want to change it, or any other non-medical reason are choosing to abort based on convenience. This hypothetical doesn't even speak to that.
quote:As I stated previously, using the hypothetical situation full of logical fallacies is no basis to condemn anyone for hypocrisy. I value the life of born children, too. Would choosing the embryos make me a hypocrite for saying I value born children while letting one die in a fire? I'm sure you or others would want to say as much. The hypothetical is a no-win situation for someone who claims to value life because it is designed to illicit an emotional response, not a logical one.
You are a hypocrite. The only solution to that is to admit that abortion is different from murder and knock it off with that nonsense. Continuing with this silly "murder" campaign is nothing but hypocrisy.
quote:What in the world are you talking about? Outlawing abortion would keep more people out of a woman's "snatch" by keeping abortion doctors out. Legislation to outlaw abortion is not "rape". You are definitely reaching troll level now, though.
Sorry, but the government isn't allowed up a woman's snatch because they heard a coat hanger hit the floor. Nobody's allowed in there unless she says so. The word for violating this simple truth is rape. Your argument is so nonsensical that you are advocating for the government to rape women. That shite is the kind of thing fit for the Sudan, but we don't do that here.
quote:Again, where is the lie?
^^^Lying right there.
You and I are both morally opposed to abortion, but it's obvious that your "murder" argument is based on nothing but emotion, or else the math would check out.
My argument is not based on emotion but a moral repugnance against taking of innocent life and the application of "murder" to the unborn. It's fallacious to say that I don't actually think that way because I don't kill abortion doctors and blow up abortion clinics. This goes back to the Just War Theory I mentioned several pages ago. The only rational way to fight this is through the government.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:24 pm to BlackAdam
It's not a distinction without a difference at all. You're stating that there's no discernible difference between asking "Is fertilized life is equal to the value of born life?" versus asking "Does fertilized life have any value at all?"
Look, if I say to you:
"Which beer type do you prefer, IPA or Stout?"
And you answer "Stout," that in no way precludes you from having IPA as your second favorite beer style, miles ahead of every other style of beer that's not Stouts. You may love IPAs. But by your own admission you value Stouts more.
Look, if I say to you:
"Which beer type do you prefer, IPA or Stout?"
And you answer "Stout," that in no way precludes you from having IPA as your second favorite beer style, miles ahead of every other style of beer that's not Stouts. You may love IPAs. But by your own admission you value Stouts more.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:28 pm to Strophie
quote:
Is fertilized life is equal to the value of born life?" versus asking "Does fertilized life have any value at all?"
Sorry i meant the term you made up, fertilized life. If an egg is fertilized it is a human being, and alive. For frick's sake even Dr. Seuss knows a person is a person no matter how small.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:29 pm to duckdude
This is what the thought experiment is intended to resolve:
And this is completely outside the scope of the thought experiment:
I'm not addressing the rationale or lack thereof of getting an abortion. I'm exclusively talking about the first quote.
quote:
If a house was on fire I would save a 5 year old before saving a pregnant woman so that must mean there is more life value in a 5 year old than a fetus
And this is completely outside the scope of the thought experiment:
quote:
so a fetus isn't alive and I wont feel guilty for having it removed BINGO!! Get PP on the phone, hurry before I think about it any more.
I'm not addressing the rationale or lack thereof of getting an abortion. I'm exclusively talking about the first quote.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:33 pm to BlackAdam
quote:
Sorry i meant the term you made up, fertilized life. If an egg is fertilized it is a human being, and alive. For frick's sake even Dr. Seuss knows a person is a person no matter how small.
Okay, so it's an issue of semantics then.
Call it whatever you want. The whole point is comparing X to Y in terms of value. You can label X as "fertilized life" or "embryonic life" or "an egg" or "life potential" or whatever you want. In a literal sense, I'm talking about an female egg that has been inseminated. How far along in the gestation period that egg is malleable when it comes to the thought experiment and how far you want to take it.
Look, I appreciate (sincerely!) your position that a fertilized egg is a human being. I do! But coming to that opinion is the entire point of the thought experiment. And when I ponder the thought experiment, I don't reach the same conclusion, insofar as equating it to a toddler (to continue this whole thing..). I just don't.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:33 pm to Strophie
My last response when re-read seems quip or sharp, I don't intend it that way but the issue is really that black and white to me.
I hope you have never been in this situation, heck I hope no woman is ever in a situation where she needs to make this decision.
Like murder once it has been done, you must live with the consequences the rest of your life. How many times in a woman's life after an abortion do you think they reflect on the decision? What kind of mental toll do you believe it takes on her? Honestly I have to believe it has to be a hard thing to live with it. We see from time to time a mother trying to get her baby back that you she put up for adoption, circumstances change, people change but some things can't be undone.
I have a real soft spot for children, they are awesome and bring so much value and real happiness to your life but only if you let them.
I hope you have never been in this situation, heck I hope no woman is ever in a situation where she needs to make this decision.
Like murder once it has been done, you must live with the consequences the rest of your life. How many times in a woman's life after an abortion do you think they reflect on the decision? What kind of mental toll do you believe it takes on her? Honestly I have to believe it has to be a hard thing to live with it. We see from time to time a mother trying to get her baby back that you she put up for adoption, circumstances change, people change but some things can't be undone.
I have a real soft spot for children, they are awesome and bring so much value and real happiness to your life but only if you let them.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:38 pm to duckdude
quote:
My last response when re-read seems quip or sharp, I don't intend it that way but the issue is really that black and white to me.
I appreciate that, but I didn't take it to be ill intended.
quote:
I hope you have never been in this situation
I haven't. I hope I never have to be. And I fully concede that being in the situation may change my mind. Look, I'm not like laissez faire about it; I just want to make sure that my own opinion is rationally sound. Lord knows that my wife and I don't want more kids beyond the two we already have. But I'm not flippant enough about abortion that I'd ever consider aborting if we accidentally got pregnant again. I just think that the issue is incredibly case dependent.
quote:
I have a real soft spot for children, they are awesome and bring so much value and real happiness to your life but only if you let them.
I can agree with that, and would never argue otherwise.
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News