Pro choicers need to come up with better arguments

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 76
#61
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
Well, apparently you're not learning from your mistakes
No, apparently you’re not learning from theirs, if the argument was counterproductive on their part what makes you think you’re special? I mean your literally putting emphasis on the title of this thread right now.

A simple "my mistake" would prevent repitious corrections.
I’m still not convinced your repetitions are corrections in the first place, perhaps a substantial original argument would do the trick.
#62
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Vici
self ownership doesn't trump an individual human life which you brought into existence.
Actually it does. There is no right to use the body of another against their will because...self ownership. Absent consent, there is no circumstance where I can use your body and that applies across the board to everyone. 
#63
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tarik
No, apparently you’re not learning from theirs, if the argument was counterproductive on their part what makes you think you’re special? I mean your literally putting emphasis on the title of this thread right now.
I pointed out the fallacious appeal to authority (scientists obviously aren't the go-to gurus on legal issues).  An honest interlocutor would refute the objection, acknowledge ignorance, or admit to an honest mistake. As for the OP, I've provided rebuttal [Link].  Feel free to chime in, but don't think I won't call out broken thinking in your rebuttal.  

I’m still not convinced your repetitions are corrections in the first place, perhaps a substantial original argument would do the trick.
Nothing substantial is required to point out your logic ain't logic-ing. 

#64
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
Nothing substantial is required to point out your logic ain't logic-ing. 

Nowhere in that link does it say science is a false authority, and what makes you so sure the capricious legal system is correct? Before you want to accuse me of fallacies you might want to get a good look in the mirror.

#65
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tarik
Nowhere in that link does it say science is a false authority
Scientists are the appropriate authority for science. Scientists are not the proper authority on *not science*. That's just how expertise works. 

and what makes you so sure the capricious legal system is correct
As far as I am concerned, personhood of the unborn is a distraction to the abortion debate - the definition is unimportant. No person has the right to use the body of another without consent. Consent can mark the difference between sex and rape, cooperation and slavery, or organ donation and abuse of a corpse. If you toss out consent, you might as well toss out personhood.  
#66
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
self ownership doesn't trump an individual human life which you brought into existence.
Actually it does. There is no right to use the body of another against their will because...self ownership. Absent consent, there is no circumstance where I can use your body and that applies across the board to everyone. 
bingo
#67
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Tarik
And who is? You?

More than you, that’s for sure. 
#68
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
As far as I am concerned, personhood of the unborn is a distraction to the abortion debate - the definition is unimportant. 
Yet that’s what you decided to critique my argument on 🤦🏾‍♂️
#69
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@TWS1405
More than you, that’s for sure. 
Well I disagree, you see how easy that was 😉 
#70
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Tarik
Childish banal retort. 
#71
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tarik
Yet that’s what you decided to critique my argument on 🤦🏾‍♂️
Even if someone thought personhood was key to the abortion argument, your position of unborn personhood relies on broken thinking. You have no foundation other than bald assertion. Would you accept that from me? If so, I guess the discussion ends with this counter assertion:

'No scientific system can define what is and isn’t a person, only law can do that, read a book.'
#72
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
No scientific system can define what is and isn’t a person, only law can do that, read a book.
Mic drop … 
#73
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@TWS1405
Childish banal retort. 
Hence why I called it easy, are you now catching on?
#74
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
Would you accept that from me?
Nope
#75
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tarik
Would you accept that from me?
Nope
Good. Now hold yourself to that same standard.
#76
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
Good. Now hold yourself to that same standard.
And what standard is that? The one that doesn’t accept ridiculous claims from you? Sure, don’t have to tell me twice.