Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

is abortion ok?

Posted May 10, '14 at 2:52am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,475 posts

Yes, technically you do arrive at this conclusion when using logic, but

How is there a "but" if his conclusion was logical?

Premise 1: Willfully or negligently killing potential humans is (wrong/bad/evil/murder).
Premise 2: Human gametes are potential humans.
Conclusion: Willfully or negligently killing human gametes is (wrong/bad/evil/murder).

Which part(s) do you disagree with?

sidenote: I added "negligently" to include possible things that pregnant women do that increase their risk of miscarriage, such as heavily smoking.


last edited May 10 2014 03:01 am by EmperorPalpatine
 

Posted May 10, '14 at 3:31am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,798 posts

Knight

Contraception and killing a fetus are two entirely different things.


How is it different for you? Is it not both preventing potential person-hood from forming?
 

Posted May 10, '14 at 12:44pm

Kennethhartanto

Kennethhartanto

248 posts

Using selfish logic to suit your nit picking on a subject that people with a conscious and common sense know is wrong, is wrong


1. it's your selfish logic not mine, and i already said that in the word "using your logic"
2.people with a conscious and common sense are very subjectival, depending on someone's views, some would even say that Hitler is consciously basing his actions on common sense. I could even say that the north korea president Kim-il Sung is acting on common sense. so you're argument makes no sense to me, in the part of your "wrongness".

And by nit picking I mean singling out insignificant details and making them the focal point to make me look bad as if I represent all pro-life people.


1. your insignificant detail is your (maybe?) hopeless cover-up scheme that is as clear as night and day. It is important, which is proven when only you resent my choice to make it a "focal point"
2. what good i would get from making you look bad in front of the world huh? it's not like i was paid to make you look bad, and i got nothing by opposing you. in fact, i would suffer a drawback, which is making an enemy of you and getting banned for flamming.

Contraception and killing a fetus are two entirely different things. Yes, technically you do arrive at this conclusion when using logic, but you are blind to the facts that first must be assumed to be true before you can proceed with the logical method and hope to come to the correct answer. In a nutshell, your logic will continue to be irreparably flawed until you wake up to the facts.


So what's your problem with me using your logic in a slightly different way? if your logic WAS true, then your logicality would/should had no problem with others when they are to use it. Contraception and killing a fetus can be a different matter, but in the case of your logicality, it is on the same matter. so yes, the first is assumed to be true and so it (hopefully) justify the whole answer. Read, YOUR logic not mine, because i was using yours in a different way as opposed to how you use it.

Dang, I am better than you.
 

Posted May 10, '14 at 1:12pm

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

2,155 posts

Using selfish logic to suit your nit picking on a subject that people with a conscious and common sense know is wrong, is wrong. And by nit picking I mean singling out insignificant details and making them the focal point to make me look bad as if I represent all pro-life people.


No, actually, it isnt, as people with working rational centres know. To be selfish is to care about one's self. To care is to be swayed by emotion and impulse. Logic is not any of these things, but you very likely are.

The details you try to pass off as insignificant are, nevertheless, more than enough to reduce your argument to an empty husk if left unchecked, so I would not advise you to ignore them completely.

Contraception and killing a fetus are two entirely different things. Yes, technically you do arrive at this conclusion when using logic, but you are blind to the facts that first must be assumed to be true before you can proceed with the logical method and hope to come to the correct answer. In a nutshell, your logic will continue to be irreparably flawed until you wake up to the facts.


Of course, because gametes are not TRUE Scotsm- I mean - potential humans, are they? You claim that he is blind to "the facts", but at the same time you are withholding them. You speak of "the facts" as though you are about to produce them, but you have yet to do so.
 

Posted May 10, '14 at 2:56pm

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

10,108 posts

After all, you like the movie A Serbian Film. Proof//armorgames.com/community/thread/ ⦠t-12239039. I know this is a bit off topic, but I'm not surprised that you are pro-abortion since you like a movie in which newborn babies are raped and tortured.


1) I don't like that movie, I love it. One of my top 5 favorite all time movies.

2) I'm not 'pro-abortion', I'm pro-choice

3) I don't like the movie because of the "Newborn Porn" scene. I like it because of its amazing plot, full of complex social criticisms and powerful scenes.
 

Posted May 10, '14 at 3:17pm

SportShark

SportShark

1,181 posts

No, actually, it isnt, as people with working rational centres know. To be selfish is to care about one's self. To care is to be swayed by emotion and impulse. Logic is not any of these things, but you very likely are.

Perhaps logic isn't always correct then.

The details you try to pass off as insignificant are, nevertheless, more than enough to reduce your argument to an empty husk if left unchecked, so I would not advise you to ignore them completely.

Here goes my weekend.

Of course, because gametes are not TRUE Scotsm- I mean - potential humans, are they? You claim that he is blind to "the facts", but at the same time you are withholding them. You speak of "the facts" as though you are about to produce them, but you have yet to do so.

I guess that this argument is morphing into a values vs. ice cold logic battle.
Sometimes I think that you've sold your soul to logic (Yes, I know that you are going to say that you don't have a soul, but you understand).
 

Posted May 10, '14 at 3:59pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,746 posts

themastaplaya, do you think abortion is justified in cases of rape?

 

Posted May 10, '14 at 4:29pm

Moegreche

Moegreche

3,393 posts

Moderator

I really don't like the way that the word 'logic' is being thrown around here. Logic helps provide much-needed constraints on reason. If "logic isn't always correct" or should be outweighed by emotion, then we're in a world of hurt.
Feel free to check out my Introduction to Logic thread to see what logic is and what it's about.

But on the point about contraception vs. abortion, I've never liked the argument that says that anyone who uses a potentiality argument must reject contraception as well. This is for two reasons:

1) There are way better (and less slippery-slope-style) objections to the potentiality argument.
2) There does seem to be a clear, principled, and non-question begging distinction to be made. After all, a given sperm or egg doesn't have the potential for life. This line of thought shows a misunderstanding of the potentiality argument. It's *not* this:

PA1) Any action that interferes with a process that could create a person is immoral.

Instead, it's something like this:

PA2) Any action that destroys an entity that could be a person is immoral.

To get to the contraception worry, we would need PA1. But it seems like the potentiality argument is based on PA2.

There's another way of drawing the distinction based on intentional vs effective means. But this is a bit more complicated and I don't think we really need it to get the point home, though I'm happy to rehearse the argument if needed.

 

Posted May 10, '14 at 11:54pm

SportShark

SportShark

1,181 posts

That sounds great, Moe! I like your reasoning 100 times better than pang's.

themastaplaya, do you think abortion is justified in cases of rape?

Unjustified yet tragic, rape abortions account for less than an estimated 1% of all abortions. The rest are because someone (lets not point fingers) was irresponsible.
 

Posted May 11, '14 at 1:06am

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

2,155 posts

Unjustified yet tragic, rape abortions account for less than an estimated 1% of all abortions. The rest are because someone (lets not point fingers) was irresponsible.


What has that ratio (which I consider a very poor estimate) to do with this? Morality is not defined by whatever happens to be the majority of cases.
 
Reply to is abortion ok?

You must be logged in to post a reply!