I've noticed that Pro-Choicers here mentally distract themselves

I couldn't tell, were you being sarcastic, or were you saying that fetuses would actually have rights, but the reason they don't is because the woman has greater rights?

Among the pro-choice crowd, there seems to be two different positions. Some of them hold both.

 

What two positions is it that you imagine?

 

Nope. They have exactly the same rights as any other person.

No person has the right to use another person’s body against that person’s will.

 

Which means that in the hypothetical if I was able to prove in argument that persons would have the right to use another person's body, then you would agree that abortion would not be a right.

 

Persons do not have that right, so you would have a difficult time proving it. Especially because if you did prove that right existed, it opens the door for government forced organ “donations” from unwilling “donors”.

 

Which is an argument for another thread.

I just meant that you are a pro-choicer who is not claiming that the fetus is not a person.

Actually that is not that uncommon. (Although many pro-choicers here are reluctant to admit it because they don't want to give any ground)

 

I find it ironic that you would say that (insinuated against me) when that's what most of the pro-choicer responses in this thread so far have been.

 

Here's another challenge you will have to ignore:

Name those who believe a fetus is a legal "person".

If you can't name them it will prove you're just blowing smoke as usual.... And remember , you said there were "many".....let's see how many....




"""And there’s something wrong when someone makes a claim and when they’re asked to provide an argument why they just dodge or ignore it. I’m still waiting."""


That applies to you in this thread...

 

Once again you continue to refuse to respond to the question and divert it to something else. It appears that it’s actually you who “mentally distracts themselves”. So I’ll try once again. Why does a fetus have rights?

 

That's not the subject of this thread.

But to quickly answer, the answer to that, I think, can be divided into two main categories:
1. That the fetus is a person, human being, sentient entity, etc.
2. That this being of inherent value has the right to grow inside a woman's womb who may not want it to.

I'm not sure what else you're asking. Surely you don't expect to have the full debate about fetal rights in this thread.

I've noticed a pattern. It seems many pro-choicers here don't want to stay on topic. Then it compromises the level of meaningful discussion that can be had, because then it's turned into a full-on abortion debate with too wide a scope, in threads that weren't intended to have that full-on discussion.

So I'm not going to indulge your question here, which is actually a deflection and distraction, whether you realize it or not.

 

I asked you on the other thread where it was relevant and you refused to answer. Regardless the rights to the fetus/mother is essential in the abortion debate and will always be relevant. You’re being a hypocrite. The rights of the fetus is the meaningful discussion that I have continued to attempt to engage with you yet until now you have ignored.

 

Yes, but this thread isn't on the wider abortion debate, now is it?

Now you're playing a semantics argument.

What you're trying to bring up is only tangentially related to the topic of this thread.
What we were talking about is (some) pro-choicers using a disingenuous strategy in their arguments, having to do with two different category types of abortion arguments.

I don't have to prove anything about fetal rights in this thread.

 

FoxHastings, that seems to me like a semantics argument. What exactly do you mean by "legal person"?
We already have another pro-choicer in this thread who believes the fetus is a person.

 

I’m not interested in debating with the thread nazi over whether or not an argument is relevant to a specific thread topic. So I’ll make a thread responding to your argument so you can’t deflect with that anymore.

Ironic you complain about pro-choice arguments having two categories when you yourself profess to have two main categories to the rights of a fetus.

 

Not a relevant question to the thread topic.

 

If any pro-choicer wants to respond to the original post, they're welcome to.
Otherwise it seems like they are mentally distracting themselves.

 

It's not if everyone uses the definition of person and not make up their very own definition.

 

I don't want to turn this into a semantics argument. Is there a way we can discuss my claim in the opening post without doing that?

 

So, you've never dismissed an opponents rebuttal?
Do you use the definition of person as provided by a dictionary?

 

No, that would be extremely difficult if definitions can be made up on the fly.
There has to be base rules to discuss anything, and if the very words used can't be agreed upon, then any argument becomes mute.

 

Should the family then be able to receive life insurance if the family has life insurance on dependents?
How about claiming a tax deduction as a dependent?

 

The population of the world has done nothing but grow, so, souls must be created from nothing to fill those bodies that keep getting more and more.

 

I have never seen an argument that makes a fetus a person.
If one uses the definition provided by a dictionary.
If one changes definitions of words, the are mentally distracting themselves and the discussion ceases to be meaningful.

And the OP itself seems to be about semantics. Note the use of 'makes it seem'.

 

I figured out what it's called, it's called the fallacy of Irrelevant conclusion, trying to deflect away from the original argument by changing to another argument (one that may or may not be correct but which does not refute the first). It's also known as "clouding the issue".

 

And what I say is call it a person if you like. Call it a little miracle from heaven. I don't care. As long as you call it dead after the abortion