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
After all, a given sperm or egg doesn't have the potential for life.
I think you mean person-hood.
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.
This does help to provide some means of understanding but the difference seems somehow a bit superficial. This could possibly come from a different way of looking at the sperm/egg.
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.
The woman is the victim, and then you go on and enforce a pregnancy on her?
Maybe we should enforce a pregnancy on him, and see how he likes being in hormonal, tired, sick, and in pain, because someone else did something wrong.
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.
That's exactly the conclusion I would make. No child should be forced to undergo the psychological damage of being born to a mother who is traumatized by his/her very existence, especially if the mother is unable to provide for that child.
I can't find themastaplaya's comment that everyone appears to be quoting, but I'll respond to it.
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.
If you believe this, there is no discussion possible. Abortion is fundamentally a women's rights issue, not an issue of whether the baby/fetus has rights. Do women have the right to control what goes on inside on their own body? Yet you're so fixated with this potential human being that you completely disregard the other human being who is involved.
That sounds great, Moe! I like your reasoning 100 times better than pang's.
This comment is asking for trouble. plus you like his comments just because you think he's on your side right? pretty subjective aren't you?
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.
Evidence? proofs? anything to support this claim? Even if you have those, in what way does being in the majority justifies the action?
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.
may i ask what the ancient Rome's penalty for rape is?
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:.....
1. actually, the world literally revolve around you, me and all humans in this planet, because even when we are staying at one position, the world is still rotating at great speeds (107.200 km/h), so the world ( the rest of the universe ) is literally revolving around us humans. 2.The ones wasting time by not making any nice arguments are you Masta not Pang.
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
Because of that, try even better at presenting your argument so they can't shoot you down because of illogicality. If you give little effort at your arguments, don't expect us to just nod our heads, because we are respectively going to give a little effort to understand yours as well (because our ability to understand others is limited, rather than we just don't want to).
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 applied by person A and person B might differ from each other, this is i think is where you got your argument from. But, there is one side of logicality applied by someone that would be accepted and used by others and also agreed by the majority. that logic is called "the right logic" and this thing is absolute because it won't change across the ages (because the most of the masses that use this agreed on this). other logicality would be called "the wrong logic", and even though this is still absolute ( because there are people believing in it), it would be riddled with mistakes and fallacies that make it essentially "wrong", rather then the "right" one that is free from mistakes and should have no problem when someone is using it. think of logic as a mathematical equation and identities. Trigometrics identities has to spell the right answer no matter what number is substituted into the equation. for example, cosx^2 +sinx^2 =1 is always true no matter what number you substitute. this is similar to logicality, now do you get it Masta?
Logic can be "wrong" mainly because it is based on illegitimate grounds. Of course the woman and the unborn child have equal rights, and neither should be forced to die for the other. (A child shouldn't be killed to save a woman from pain, and if there is a 0% chance of both of them to die, only then is abortion an option)
Logic can be "wrong" mainly because it is based on illegitimate grounds.
No. Logic, itself, is not wrong, as is the reasoning that is based on illigitimate grounds. Logic is a system for the identification of truth. If you fail to use it correctly in your reasoning, you end up with a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are wrong because they do not comply with logic, which isn't.
Of course the woman and the unborn child have equal rights, and neither should be forced to die for the other. (A child shouldn't be killed to save a woman from pain, and if there is a 0% chance of both of them to die, only then is abortion an option)
No child is being killed. Therefore, abortion is justified.
No. Logic, itself, is not wrong, as is the reasoning that is based on illigitimate grounds. Logic is a system for the identification of truth. If you fail to use it correctly in your reasoning, you end up with a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are wrong because they do not comply with logic, which isn't.
Would what he described not fall under informal fallacy, which has a correct form of logic but incorrect premises?
Of course the woman and the unborn child have equal rights, and neither should be forced to die for the other.
Here I would ask of you to give your reasoning for the question of why a foetus should have the same rights as an adult individual. As I suspect your answer will likely involve the potentiality argument, and since this has been discussed in the previous pages, I would recommend you read those first, especially Moe's posts.
