Mother confronts woman with "I had an abortion" sh

Post Reply New Topic

As I said, to keep things in perspective. And to encourage critical thinking.

If you want to demonstrate why abortion is the way to go, you don't do it by speaking in absolutes. This means you should accept that it's reasonable for some people to see a fetus as a human being with its own rights just like the mother. If you don't, then you're saying that they absolutely have no rights, which indicates that you're arguing in absolutes. That's the same mistake most pro-lifers do. Speaking in absolutes.

i am thinking critically, but you keep moving the goalposts and questioning everything, which isn't actually critical thinking - it's just critical noise. it isn't possible to have a fruitful debate like that, as it's rather like debating creation with someone who says "but the world doesn't exist. it's all a mirage!" then when you agree, the person says, "but the world exists if you are standing on it!"

there is no framework in that - it's pointless. you may want to consider ahead of time what you are actually discussing and limit yourself accordingly, or you may want to take a stance prior to engaging. either way, it's not worth my time to have this discussion with you. maybe someone else has the patience, but i don't.

No, you've not been thinking critically in this thread. There have been a couple of members here in this thread who have, but you're not one of them so far. And I don't even care to make sense of the analogy that you're describing here. It looks like you just want to use rhetorics to indicate that I suck at critical thinking when I was absolutely clear that I was never arguing for absolutes, while you, and others, on the other hand, kept arguing for absolutes despite me pointing out the lack of logic in it and asking that you address the logic in my arguments. Which neither you nor they did ever address.



Your lack of understanding of my position does not mean I lack framework.

hahaha don't blame other people's critical thinking when your own arguments don't hold water. you argued in absolutes (or at least didn't allow any leeway), then changed your position when it was disputed. and so it went, back and forth, then finally your absolute position was a position of "no absolutes" - a lazy argument.

nahhhh it's a waste of time to play this game with you. i'm out.

Sure, let's check the post that triggered our recent exchange here:



Doesn't look like I was arguing in absolutes here.

For reference, go back to the following link and reread what I was really arguing.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf221350-0-75.html

It was sarcasm. Of course my agenda is "feministic". I tend to agree on a lot of points with feminists. But I disagree with extreme feminists in their (awful) treatment of trans women and possibly other things. If we define feminism as looking for equality, then I am all for it.

I'm not versed on feminism, but that's generally what it means, right?

Yep, people should be all for that.

Here's one of the rare cases where I disagree with you, Visagrunt. At the developmental starge where the vast majority of miscarriages and abortions happen, an embryo doesn't have skin. It might not even have much of a dermis - just the undifferentiated tissue that will become dermis (and CNS, etc.).

I have never suggested that it does.

What I have said is that the organism is human (by reason of the typical 46 chromosomes, and their source), and it is distinct (by reason of its distinct genome). I have never suggested that it is fully formed or viable.

But there is no point in pretending that a fetus isn't alive or isn't human, because it is most clearly both of those things. The justification for maternal access to abortion must be cast in a way that acknowledges those facts, and stands up to scrutiny in the face of them. That is why I place my limit at the threshold of viability.

Visagrunt^I misunderstood your meaning, then.
Your stance is, as always, reasonable.
Many of us in the abortion debate speak only in terms of the ends of a pregnancy: the unformed embryo, or the fetus one day before it's born.

I don't really see the relevance.

Coincidentally, the fetus itself is created by and extracted from a larger, complete organism.
A human fetus. A prospect human being. That sort of stuff.

You may be going overly literalistic in this. When I mean human being I mean person. But I stand by all of it.


Birth.

Human (Adjective). Oh, and no lexical warfare please. It is closer to a thing than an "individual".
Or is it? Apparently I don't even agree on this.


We are square back to schrödinger's abortion then.

Extract the fetus. If it survives, then it was a birth by dissection. If it dies out of still needing the mother's organism to stay alive, then it was not a complete organism yet.

f**k you.

Logically I am correct. In fact if it was not for logic I would not ever have come to this conclusion. Lack of brain tells me there is no consciousness at conception. So we have to draw a line somewhere. Birth is the only line that can be drawn that is not absurdly arbitrary. Ok, some anti-choicers are idiotic enough to believe that it makes even the remote sense to draw the line at conception, but like I said that's definitely not the case.

I have in the past admitted that the truth value of a fetus being a person is a fuzzy value like 0.67 (completely made up). We know that a person is a person at birth (based on our laws only) and that it does not even have a brain until some week from conception. So maybe we should interpolate or something. But my logic tells me that 0.90 of a human being hardly deserves more rights than 1.00 of one.

There is medically and biologically no metric that defines any stage of pregnancy in which the thing is definitely a person. Personhood is something that is in the fuzzy side of things. So you would be sounded more like a quack if you make a positive claim and insist that you have biology on your side. I would not be surprised though, considering how you were apologetic of homeopathy in the past.

Ethically? At this point it seems like you just wanted to add modifiers to the claim that I would be wrong. But I strongly disagree. We cannot force people to go through pregnancies. Sorry.

Yeah, because autism makes me about...20% of a human being, so I should have less rights and privileges because of that.

Logic goes both ways.

This is not logic.

It can be if you base humans on "what they are" in comparison to other humans, and it'd be logical to assume that humans will advance to a greater level if only the "ideal" are allowed to live or have greater rights, for example. Eugenics is logical, even if it's an awful practice.

Cause and effect and all that.

I've had to split posts off this thread because of a personal attack and a swear filter dodge.

If you can't keep it civil, at least stay within the TOS.