Is abortion ok? I donât think so. The babies that these people are killing is wrong, some people say that itâs not a person that itâs a bag of cells or a fetus and not really human being I have to disagree
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Then let's just say that in the rare case of a rape pregnancy that the fetus shouldn't have to suffer because of the rapist. I say that we should instate ancient Rome's penalty for rape to make rapists think twice.
Um..tf? Why was I singled out, pray tell
I wasn't referring to you If you're referring to my last post.
So here is why I'm confused. My reasoning was singled out against Moe's..yet moe and I are discussing different Different topics. Moe is discussing contraceptives while I was discussing bodily rights. So..how Were we paired like so? 1) did I miss something? And if so please thoroughly explain for me so I may understand 2) did you perchance miss something? Or 3) This is a part of this recent obsessive posting on my behalf that has already had moderator interactions on.
The world doesn't revolve around you and I've already given you plenty of my time which seems to have been a waste; you aren't getting anywhere but rather continually asking me: why?, why is that?, why was I singled out?, why don't you give more facts to support yourself? why?, why?, why?
All you're doing is waiting for me to say something that you can shoot down as illogical and that you can your fallacy template on top of. Logic is not absolute, it is subjective and easily applied improperly, much like a star-head screw diver trying to screw in a flat head screw.
"Explicitly referring to me. But I'm done discussing this in this thread..swayying far off topic"
Sorry, guess I forgot about that. It is of no importance though.
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.
Do you believe women who have been raped and become pregnant because of that should have the option of whether or not they want to have an abortion?
I'm tired. I just got off work, and I'm done with this incessant ****.
The world doesn't revolve around you and I've already given you plenty of my time
Nor did I ever ****ing imply so. Page 85 of this thread You said (and I quote) "That sounds great, Moe! I like your reasoning 100 times better than pang's." Now, why do I find issue with this? Not because you singled me out, but because you did so -completely unnecessarily-. Moe and I were making points about completely separate topics on abortion so the only thing I can think of for why you would mention me is to continue this parade of "ang posts" that I have been seeing everywhere for the past week or so (did I see I have been seeing? I meant a few users and myself). But. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, of course, and asked if maybe I missed something..or hell asked if maybe you might have missed something.
Logic [...] is subjective
Jesus...did you honestly just say that?
Logic is subjective and the moon is nothing more than cardboard and fairy dust.
Now, to be as fair as I can be with what little patience I'm still holding on to, did I miss something in your seemingly unnecessary mentioning of me, or are you continuing your inane mudslinging?
[Apologies to the mods. Rough work night. Feel free to delete or whatever]
This is just an off topic comment (and sorry about that) but the post above is the result of users having personal qualms and vendettas with one another and expressing frustration from these qualms on the forums. Keep this to a minimum folks. You've already been warned once about this, masta.
That sounds great, Moe! I like your reasoning 100 times better than pang's.
You realize that Moe said there are better arguments against potentiality than the contraceptive one; not that there are none.
Logic is not absolute, it is subjective and easily applied improperly, much like a star-head screw diver trying to screw in a flat head screw.
Logic is absolute and not subjective. The application of logic can be done improperly and subjectively, but this results in a logical fallacy in the argument.
Then let's just say that in the rare case of a rape pregnancy that the fetus shouldn't have to suffer because of the rapist.
Why the foetus? This argument is technically not wrong, but in the grand picture, irrelevant. I say the woman shouldn't have to suffer any more because of the rapist. The woman is the victim, and then you go on and enforce a pregnancy on her? This is plain sadistic.
I say that we should instate ancient Rome's penalty for rape to make rapists think twice.
The penalty for rape has nothing to do with abortion, though.
