Every pro-lifer always, without fail, gets it wrong on abortion.

Author: TWS1405
Abortion
pro-life
pro-choice
misnomer

Posts

Total: 313
#91
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Novice_II
It's not my fault that you don't understand the finesse of law. Up until the point of viability I don't care what the mother does, if she were to choose an abortion she could have one. So any endangering behavior that she might participate in really doesn't matter at that point. Once the pregnancy hits the point of viability where she could no longer have an abortion anything she does that could lead to damage to the fetus causing the child to be born with long-term problems is neglect or abuse.  It is handled as such. I have worked in the system a pretty long time and I can tell you in the 20 some years I worked in probation we never had somebody on probation for abuse and neglect that happened while the child was not born yet. So even though it's considered abuse and neglect and DHHR becomes involved they're still rarely punished by the law. So my answer is yes people can do what they want. But they need to understand that once the child is born if there is a long-term issue or a physical issue due to them having done something particular that they could be found to have been neglect or abused then they can expect to be punished. You keep wanting to bringing some type of morality but it has nothing to do with that. It's all a matter of law everything's a matter of law while there are times that law and morality gel and are equally represented it's still a legal matter. So if the fetus is not considered a child yet by law there's legally nothing she could do that would be considered harmful so she can do what she wants. If she's engaging in criminal activity she will go to prison for that regardless of pregnancy. I understand you want me to spout out some sort of moral standard but for me abortion is not about morality it's about law there is no reason for me to justify forcing someone else to live under a moral code that I might hold.
Topic's author
#92
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Bones
The potentiality argument is one single argument for the pro-life position - the fetal potentiality position is not a requisite to the actual position. 
This makes zero sense. 

And like those who fail to grasp the potentiality vs actuality argument, you also fail to grasp the meaning of “fetal viability” juxtaposed to the layman’s definition of just plain “viability.” The latter having no relevance in the abortion debate/discussion. 

Try again on both points. 
#93
Novice_II
Novice_II's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 174
2
6
6
Novice_II's avatar
Novice_II
2
6
6
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
  • Okay, so amidst all this, your answer was yes. That is all I am interested in. Now, the reductio I will use here is not complex, and I was assuming we could deliberate around a few different ones. 
    • Do you think one should be hypothetically allowed to genetically modify an unborn to be a serial killer? 

#94
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Novice_II
  • Do you think one should be hypothetically allowed to genetically modify an unborn child to be a serial killer? 
And this is another reason nobody wants to discuss crap like this. This is the most stupidest thing I've ever seen posted in a pro-life/ pro-choice debate. I'm not sure you should even be allowed to genetically modify children to be healthy and never have cancer. I will say this I think it's more  immoral to get pregnant and have a child so that they can be a donor for sick sibling then I do for a woman to have an abortion. 
#95
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@TWS1405
This makes zero sense. 
#96
Novice_II
Novice_II's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 174
2
6
6
Novice_II's avatar
Novice_II
2
6
6
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
  • Well, do you acknowledge that it is a logical contradiction to say that "someone should and should not be allowed to do what they want to themselves when pregnant." If you do, (which you should) I will note that you contradicted yourself. 
  • This is the problem with bodily autonomy arguments for abortion, at least that I have seen. They seem to entail absurd conclusions.  

Topic's author
#97
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Bones
That link has absolutely nothing to do with what you wrote in which I replied made no sense. 
#98
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
--> @Polytheist-Witch
Novuce_II:
  • Okay, so amidst all this, your answer was yes. That is all I am interested in. Now, the reductio I will use here is not complex, and I was assuming we could deliberate around a few different ones. 
    • Do you think one should be hypothetically allowed to genetically modify an unborn to be a serial 
Eugenics has already achieved that. The white race is heading towards their third world war with the war in Ukraine dragging all the white countries to join in the conflict.

Topic's author
#99
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Novice_II
  • This is the problem with bodily autonomy arguments for abortion, at least that I have seen. They seem to entail absurd conclusions.  

You’re not even comprehending the difference between bodily autonomy for females vs everyone else for the ridiculous false equivalency arguments you’ve made. They’re mutually exclusive. Absurd. And demonstrates your penchant for the Dunning Kruger effect where this topic is concerned. 
#100
Novice_II
Novice_II's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 174
2
6
6
Novice_II's avatar
Novice_II
2
6
6
-->
@TWS1405
  • Interesting. 

#101
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
--> @TWS1405
Novice_II: 
  • Interesting, but not sure what to tell you here. 
It doesn’t get any better.
#102
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,872
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TWS1405
Remove your logical fallacy logical fallacy problems and you would understand that we probably agree.


False equivalency fallacy.
Your assumption.


Logical fallacy problems.
Your assumption.


Logical fallacy logical fallacy problems
My strong assumption based upon your illogical logical fallacy problems.
Topic's author
#103
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
See Dick Drink
See Dick Drive
See Dick Crash and Burn….
#104
ahiyah
ahiyah's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 73
0
1
3
ahiyah's avatar
ahiyah
0
1
3
-->
@TWS1405
Whoever liked this post is a fool, lol. 

Do you realize how stupid your first sentences actually are?

This would be a proper translation of what you said:

"dem guyz like Shapiro and Walsh are 2 stupid 2 get y abortion aint bad!"

That's such a profoundly predictable and unintelligent thing to say.

Also, you think that a zygote is just a potential baby. While it may be true that a zygote and an embryo aren't a fully formed baby yet, it is also true that all life, even after you are born, is having the potential for something that would ordinarily come providing that you survive.

In your lifetime, you go through many stages to then finally die one day if you are lucky enough to make it to old age.

For instance, are you an old man yet? No. But do you have the potential to be providing nothing ends your life? Yes! A zygote, and embryo, WILL develop into a fetus, that WILL be someone's newborn baby if it does not die. Abortion forces the death of an embryo or fetus, and this ends its natural life path.

Once that embryo has formed, it has everything needed to enter the world as a baby if it is left unharmed. That's just like we have everything needed to make it another year if nothing, or no one, kills us. 

===================================

Another issue I would raise is your view that a baby is only viable once it can survive outside the womb without "medical intervention", which is a really vague and poorly explained stance. 

Most babies need some medical intervention to see if they're healthy, so does this mean they're not viable? What about premature babies? 

Moreover, were you aware that some babies have been known to survive at a stage where women can (and do) still get abortions?
#105
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,983
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Novice_II
  • Do we have a right to prevent people from murdering others? Just a yes/no
Yes
#106
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,983
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405
No one could reasonably argue that. 

Murder is a legal term that specifically applies to (an already born) [a] human being taking the life of another (already born) [a] human being without just cause and with malice and aforethought. 

Abortion is a medical procedure.

Abortion =/= Murder.
This isn’t a legal discussion, no one here is talking about what the law states. We’re arguing over what is right, so hanging your argument on legal technicalities is pointless here.

My claim wasn’t that people who argue abortion of a viable fetus is murder are right, I’m simply saying it can be reasonably argued, because legal technicalities aside, it can be.

All of that had nothing to do with it though, I am simply contrasting the two scenarios because the difference is key to the point I’m raising. If the fetus is non viable, then ending its existence is the necessary effect of abortion, not the primary action. This places the mothers right to her own body ahead of the fetuses right to life, because the former has to be removed before the latter can be actualized.
#107
Novice_II
Novice_II's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 174
2
6
6
Novice_II's avatar
Novice_II
2
6
6
-->
@Double_R
  • So do we agree that we should be able to prevent people from doing at least some things with their body?  

Topic's author
#108
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@ahiyah
Begin a retort with a false premise, your conclusion is equally false. 

Your entire superfluous comment is based on a patent strawman fallacy. 
#109
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,983
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Novice_II
So do we agree that we should be able to prevent people from doing at least some things with their body? 
We already went through this. In fact we, or at least I, was way past that.

Yes. Get to your point.
#110
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
--> @Novice_II
So do we agree that we should be able to prevent people from doing at least some things with their body? 
We already went through this. In fact we, or at least I, was way past that.

Yes. Get to your point.
He should start by getting some body tattoos.

#111
ahiyah
ahiyah's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 73
0
1
3
ahiyah's avatar
ahiyah
0
1
3
-->
@TWS1405
So, in other words, you're unable to address any of the points I've made. 
Topic's author
#112
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@ahiyah
-->@TWS1405
Whoever liked this post is a fool, lol. 
Starting off with an ad hominem argument demonstrates not only the Dunning Kruger Effect, but that you also lost the debate/discussion before you even begin.


Do you realize how stupid your first sentences actually are?

This would be a proper translation of what you said:

"dem guyz like Shapiro and Walsh are 2 stupid 2 get y abortion aint bad!"

That's such a profoundly predictable and unintelligent thing to say.
Patent strawman fallacy!


Also, you think that a zygote is just a potential baby.

Correct. Potentiality =/= Actuality. Never has, never will. 


While it may be true that a zygote and an embryo aren't a fully formed baby yet, it is also true that all life, even after you are born, is having the potential for something that would ordinarily come providing that you survive.
False equivalency fallacy. A potential human being =/= an actual human being. As such, that potential life has no equivalence to an actual life.


In your lifetime, you go through many stages to then finally die one day if you are lucky enough to make it to old age.
There is a stark dichotomy between gestational development and biological/physiological maturation. 


For instance, are you an old man yet? No. But do you have the potential to be providing nothing ends your life? Yes! A zygote, and embryo, WILL develop into a fetus, that WILL be someone's newborn baby if it does not die. Abortion forces the death of an embryo or fetus, and this ends its natural life path.

You're one to talk about making stupid statements. 

Once that embryo has formed, it has everything needed to enter the world as a baby if it is left unharmed. That's just like we have everything needed to make it another year if nothing, or no one, kills us. 
No, it does not have everything needed to enter the world. Without fetal viability, that embryo dies upon entering the world too early.


===================================

Another issue I would raise is your view that a baby is only viable once it can survive outside the womb without "medical intervention", which is a really vague and poorly explained stance. 
Wrong. It is a medical fact. 


Most babies need some medical intervention to see if they're healthy, so does this mean they're not viable? What about premature babies? 
You clearly lack the requisite knowledge to comprehend fetal viability, understanding it has no relationship to basic viability. 

Moreover, were you aware that some babies have been known to survive at a stage where women can (and do) still get abortions?
No shit sherlock! What's your point? Oh wait, you have no point. Just gibberish. 
#113
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,872
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TWS1405
And your entirely superfluous comments are based upon what?


Topic's author
#114
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
->@TWS1405
And your entirely superfluous comments are based upon what?
Facts.

Prove me wrong.
#115
ahiyah
ahiyah's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 73
0
1
3
ahiyah's avatar
ahiyah
0
1
3
-->
@TWS1405
Starting off with an ad hominem argument demonstrates not only the Dunning Kruger Effect, but that you also lost the debate/discussion before you even begin.
Says the man who repeatedly "starts off arguments" with ad homimen attacks!

You're absurd.

Once that embryo has formed, it has everything needed to enter the world as a baby if it is left unharmed
That is what I said. I suggest you take note of the words "if it (the embryo or fetus) is left unharmed", because that is important in establishing what their potential actually is and whether it's of significance or not. An embryo's potential is no more different to yours considering that they, like you, will do just fine if allowed to live.

No, it does not have everything needed to enter the world. Without fetal viability, that embryo dies upon entering the world too early.
And what? This means people should be allowed to abort the embryo that will become a fetus, which is then a baby?

Note: I don't really distinguish between "fetus" and "baby", as fetus just means offspring.

You clearly lack the requisite knowledge to comprehend fetal viability
So more "ur stupid cuz u dont agree wit me"...is that really all you've got? 

You do realize that you're just coming up with the lamest, most untroubling, and completely banal insults in practically every post you make? Can't you see how pathetic it makes you look? 

understanding it has no relationship to basic viability. 
In *your* opinion it has no relationship to "basic viability", and you are not the one who gets to decide whether an embryo or fetus is viable.

In criminal law, the U.S seems to consider an embryo/fetus as very viable because it is considered separate to its mother, and you can be punished for causing harm to it.


Wrong. It is a medical fact.
What about most babies requiring medical intervention? For instance, a baby needs to have its cord cut from the mother after birth...isn't that a medical intervention?

In my country, they also get their heartbeat, hearing, vision, etc. looked at before you can leave the hospital.

Do you even know what kind of medical interventions you're talking about?

Also, don't you think it's kind of limited on your part to have only one perspective on this matter? Your entire stance is based on "but it's not viable, it can't survive yet" (admitting to knowing that babies have survived *even* when they can still be aborted), and that is it. No considerations have been made for moral arguments or even other scientific arguments.

Essentially, you're just set on repeating the same old boring opinion. 
Topic's author
#116
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@ahiyah
-->@TWS1405
Starting off with an ad hominem argument demonstrates not only the Dunning Kruger Effect, but that you also lost the debate/discussion before you even begin.
Says the man who repeatedly "starts off arguments" with ad homimen attacks!

You're absurd.
Patently false. 


Once that embryo has formed, it has everything needed to enter the world as a baby if it is left unharmed
That is what I said. I suggest you take note of the words "if it (the embryo or fetus) is left unharmed", because that is important in establishing what their potential actually is and whether it's of significance or not. An embryo's potential is no more different to yours considering that they, like you, will do just fine if allowed to live.

No, you said EMBRYO, no mention of fetus. Even then, an immature fetus would no more survive than an embryo if fetal viability has not been actualized.
Comparing an embryo to a born, living human being is an implicit false equivalency fallacy. 


No, it does not have everything needed to enter the world. Without fetal viability, that embryo dies upon entering the world too early.
And what? This means people should be allowed to abort the embryo that will become a fetus, which is then a baby?

Note: I don't really distinguish between "fetus" and "baby", as fetus just means offspring.

Relying on factually inaccurate terminology in this debate leaves you out in the cold. 

Context matters.

You clearly lack the requisite knowledge to comprehend fetal viability
So more "ur stupid cuz u dont agree wit me"...is that really all you've got? 

You do realize that you're just coming up with the lamest, most untroubling, and completely banal insults in practically every post you make? Can't you see how pathetic it makes you look? 
So more sophomoric banality on your part. *rolling eyes*

A statement of fact doesn't equate to the "lamest" adjectives that you could come up with to inaccurately describe that statement of fact. A fact based on observation of your own word choice, attitude, demeanor and behavior. 


understanding it has no relationship to basic viability. 
In *your* opinion it has no relationship to "basic viability", and you are not the one who gets to decide whether an embryo or fetus is viable.

In criminal law, the U.S seems to consider an embryo/fetus as very viable because it is considered separate to its mother, and you can be punished for causing harm to it.


HA HA HA HA HA!!!! Sooner or later ignorant (i.e., uneducated folk) always resorts to this law. What you fail to grasp, epically I might add, is that law, state and federal, categorize the pregnancy as [a] legal victim, regardless of stage of gestation; and NOT [a] human being. That law is merely an enhancement charge, nothing more. 


Wrong. It is a medical fact.
What about most babies requiring medical intervention? For instance, a baby needs to have its cord cut from the mother after birth...isn't that a medical intervention?
OMG! Your ignorance knows no bounds. 

In my country, they also get their heartbeat, hearing, vision, etc. looked at before you can leave the hospital.

Do you even know what kind of medical interventions you're talking about?
Yeah, you clearly do not. 


Also, don't you think it's kind of limited on your part to have only one perspective on this matter? Your entire stance is based on "but it's not viable, it can't survive yet" (admitting to knowing that babies have survived *even* when they can still be aborted), and that is it. No considerations have been made for moral arguments or even other scientific arguments.

Essentially, you're just set on repeating the same old boring opinion. 
My position is based on scientific fact and objective opinion, yours is purely subjective conjecture. Immature nonsense. 


UPDATE: Checked your limited profile info, and presuming you didn't lie about your birth year, I am twice your age and far more educated, experienced and knowledgeable than you.  You are out of your depth here, and you simply cannot win a debate with me on this subject matter. You have a lot of growing up to do, as well as obtaining more education and worldly experiences. Best quit while you are behind. 
Topic's author
#117
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Novice_II
Uh, he did answer. 

Attention to detail matters. 

EDIT: So, I see you deleted your comment after reading what I wrote above. Tisk tisk. 
#118
Novice_II
Novice_II's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 174
2
6
6
Novice_II's avatar
Novice_II
2
6
6
-->
@TWS1405
Well of course? Why would I not after you pointed out pivotal information. 
Topic's author
#119
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Novice_II
You need to work on your punctuation, not to mention grammar. 
#120
Novice_II
Novice_II's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 174
2
6
6
Novice_II's avatar
Novice_II
2
6
6
-->
@TWS1405
What specifically was the grammar/punctuation issue?