Rape victim denied abortion, forcibly hydrated and made to carry Fetus to viability.

Strawman - The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

Where in the posters comment is ANYTHING even alluding to killing a 14 year old mentioned?

False Equivalence - Describing a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none.

There is no equivalence between abortion and killing a born person.

 

So you don't know what an analogy is? It also wasn't a straw-man as I didn't distort your argument.

Why is there no equivalence between killing a born and unborn child?

 

This could be a false dichotomy if the right would stop denying and disparaging ounces of prevention and obviating any need for pounds of cure.

 

Yes I do, you however it appears do not

It wasn't my argument, and yes you did distort it or can you point out where a 14 year old was even mentioned in the original comment.

One is a person, the other is not.

 

The unborn have not the slightest semblance of personhood?

 

What happens is they don't get murdered?

 

Nope! They All look like Chihuahua's dressed up as ManBearPig.

 

forcing a rape victim to have a rapists baby should be considered a crime of accessory to rape, throw these sick people in prison and throw away the key

.

 

I didn't distort your argument as I didn't take it and change the message or respond to you with something you never said.

I asked you to justify your stance on abortion with a thought experiment using an analogy.

This, it seems, was too difficult.

Circular reasoning response to my question in which you previously made the same claim.

 

not in the legal sense no, you may consider them to have personhood, that is your right .. however that does not mean you can force that opinion onto others, neither can you state it as a fact without the evidence to support it, so far no pro-lifer has been able to come up with evidence that supports it enough for the law to be changed. If they had the unborn would already be deemed a person .. but to me it matters not anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh dear another pro-lifer throwing around words that they obviously do not understand the meaning of. Murder is a legal designation of the taking the life of another person illegally . .when did abortion become illegal, can you tell me please.

 

Please do quote where I said anything about killing 14 year olds, you can't I never said anything about 14 year olds . .hence you are responding to me with something I never said.

No you created a strawman and a false equivalence fallacy, which you hoped would go unnoticed .. it didn't

You mean too difficult for you to remain on the topic and not create arguments for something that was never included in the debate . .yes I assumed that-that was your problem.

circular reasoning hmmm really, care to show me where the biological, medical and legal evidence is to support that the unborn are persons, though to be honest it really doesn't matter that much to me, deeming the unborn as persons doesn't have the golden arrow effect on abortion as the majority of pro-lifers think it will .. in fact in strengthens the legal case in favor of abortion at anytime for any reason AND the state having to pay for it . .be careful what you wish for.

 

hate to bring this up, but how do we know she was really raped? How do they really know?
Do we just allow hundreds of babies to be aborted due to the woman's irresponsibility just so one woman doesn't have to carry a pregnancy she had no choice over?

And again, why didn't she take Plan B immediately after being raped??
She was just too traumatised and waited to take care of things only after she confirmed she had actually become impregnated?

 

I asked another poster why it's sick that a pregnant female can't terminate her unborn child conceived by rape when society does not permit children already born of rape to be terminated.

For some reason you have claimed my response was a straw-man.

To anyone with half a brain, the thought experiment/analogy was by no means a 'straw-man'.

 

The state compels them to continue gestating the unborn against their will, yes.

- - - Updated - - -

Because she was fleeing a warzone? Because access to emergency contraception is not universal?

 

Did the person you responded to make any mention of 14 year olds in their comment, yes or no?

Because that is what it was, along with being a false equivalence fallacy.

To anyone with half a brain, it would be obvious that the OP and the comments had nothing to do with born people, but let us examine this so called analogy of yours.

In order for your analogy to have any merit it relies on another fallacy, assuming the premise, you are making the assumption that the unborn (regardless of how they came to be) are in fact persons, yet as we all know, rightly or wrongly, the unborn are not seen as persons where as born people are .. your analogy fails at the first hurdle, unless of course reality is disregarded, is that what you are trying to do .. disregard reality?

 

I wouldn't worry to much about that poster, they don't understand what "being in denial" means, which surprises me considering the number of times that poster is in denial themselves.

 

That doesn't make it a straw-man as I wasn't offering a rebuttal to the poster's comment.

Please learn what a straw-man is.

It only fails as an analogy if the poster disagrees unborn are endowed with person-hood.

I'm curious how you came to the conclusion the unborn "are not seen as persons where as born people are".

How did you determine that?

 

I know what a strawman is, obviously you don't

The onus is on the person presenting the assertion to provide the facts to back it up .. so please provide your facts that the unborn are persons. It is not my, or any other persons, responsibility to dispute something that is based on an assumption of premise fallacy, except to point out that is what it is.

I'm also curious how you come to the conclusion that they are seen as persons.

How did you determine that?

After all it is your assertion, onus on you to provide the facts and or evidence to support it.

 

I did not respond to another poster's argument with my own argument using a distorted version of that poster's argument.

My post wasn't a straw-man. Feel free showing it was using examples of established straw-men.

Wrong. If the poster concedes my point then I do not need to 'prove' my assertion. If the poster rejects the comparison/point, then I can either counter or concede the point.

I made no such original claim. Try reading.

 

I stand by my original comment, you disagree that is your right, doesn't change the reality.

 

per·son noun \ˈpər-sən\
: a human being

 

[video=youtube;J7YmrsY4KSY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7YmrsY4KSY[/video]

 

"Oh, but it was from rape. These women needed those Abortions."

 

Or it is cruel for the state to force a victim of rape to continue to bear the product of that assault.

 

Even if she waited that long to do anything about it? Did you see that video? The abortion doctor was yanking the poor fetuses out of their mother, held them up while they were wiggling around, and... jabbed scissors into the back of their neck, to cut their little spinal cords.