Any lifer got the guts to debate me?

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by MegadethFan, Feb 15, 2012.

  1. Locke9-05

    Locke9-05 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,450
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    False charge of fallacy. The personhood debate is still going, neither side has been proved correct or will be proved correct for quite some time, I would venture to guess. Therefore, while what Reagan said was not fallacious, your post's assertion that "there is no 'existing person' in the early stages of pregnancy" is not verifiable or factual.

    The fact of the matter is that even if it is eventually determined (and it would be an issue of subjective consensus, not science) that a fetus is not a person, an entity can still be lucky. "Lucky" is an adjective which can apply to pretty much any noun. Granted it generally applies to people, but can apply to places and things as well. An entity which will form a human being can be lucky just as a person who has developed from said entity can feel lucky to have been allowed to form from that entity.
     
  2. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Attack on Reagan, you mean? It's his own fault for saying something so asinine.

    It doesn't sound cool or inspiring, though, does it? It just sounds stupid


    Neither good or bad. I'm here because my parents wanted children.

    They were lucky that they were able to have them.


    Exactly, just as there was never used to be me.


    So? if they hadn't have been born, then who would know?

    Just like my non existent sister.
     
  3. Locke9-05

    Locke9-05 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,450
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No, I'm talking about the way your post attacked churchmouse's observation that Reagan was responsible for the quote when you said something to the effect of "did you work that out all by yourself?" That was unnecessary and totally childish.
    I like the quote, but I wouldn't expect your arguments to be capable of factoring in the obvious irony which that quote brings into light. But I wasn't even referring to that quote necessarily when I was talking about how quotes might seem "cool or inspiring" I was talking about using quotes in general and how it's not very effective to get an argument across.
    Do you or do you not enjoy life? You're clearly not a mental vegetable, you must have an opinion about whether or not your life has been good for you or bad for you. "Neither good nor bad" is just your position's way of ducking out of answering the question. I'm looking for a yes or no answer now: Do you enjoy your life and the opportunities you have as a result for the most part?
    That's neither here nor there, your parents are not a relevant portion of this discussion.
    Again, this statement is irrelevant. However many years of age you are plus one or two and yes, that's correct, you were not in existence, but that really has no bearing, because you were conceived, you existed in the womb, you were born and continued to exist. Ever since you existed, adjectival attributes can be applied to you in dialogue as you are a real entity and have been for however long since your conception. So I emphasize the same question: do you enjoy your life and the opportunities that result for the most part? A straight yes or no answer will suffice to that clear "yes" or "no" question.
    That is irrelevant and has no bearing on what I'm discussing. I made the clear and obvious point that they HAVE been born, so theorizing about what things would be like had they not is simply fallacious. It's not sticking to the line of logic my arguments are following. Perhaps your arguments are trying to foreshadow where you think I might be going with this line of logic, but please don't. I don't want to be the source of any strain on your position's logical fluidity or comprehension of the matters being discussed. So let's just take this one step at a time, shall we?
     
  4. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I liked it.


    Using quotes can be very effective. However using that one is stupid.



    Yes. I didn't enjoy it when I was a baby, though, because I wasn't aware of anything.

    they are certainly relevant. They're the only people relevant in this discussion.

    If my parents hadn't wanted children I wouldn't have been born. If they'd wanted more than four, then my non existent sister would have been born.



    Because my parents chose that. If they hadn't, then I wouldn't have been born.

    I wouldn't exist. Just as my sister doesn't exist.



    No.

    Only since my birth did I exist as a person. Before that I was just a potential person.

    My parents were expecting a boy they were going to name Stephen.

    There was no Stephen, so he didn't mind.


    I understand your points perfectly. I've heard it all before.
     
  5. Locke9-05

    Locke9-05 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,450
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I would only expect as much. Sad that some individuals cannot discuss using standards.
    Incorrect. Using quotes is never an effective debate tactic, at least not in a real debate. Perhaps you'll fool some people online into believing that, but using a quote in an attempt to drive a point home is a textbook example of the appeal to misleading authority logical fallacy which comes in the following structure:

    Authority A believes that P is true.
    Therefore, P is true.

    That is not a logically sound form of argument. Ever. Quotes are just men making statements of opinion--sometimes with reasonable authority, sometimes not, but never is it actually logically valid to use a quote as actual evidence backing an argument.
    When you were a "baby?" You do realize that you're taking this a few steps beyond zygote, do you not? Human babies are not "unaware." Babies are very aware of their surroundings, they simply do not perceive the world like adults do. So if you didn't enjoy life when you were a baby, it had nothing to do with the false premise that you "were not aware of anything."
    Not if you're debating the questions I'm asking you, no they are not. If you're telling me my arguments are wrong, you should probably be sure that your opposing arguments are at least on the right track of telling me mine are wrong. Bringing your parents into this discussion was not an example of this.
    So would it be safe to gather from that statement that your argument is that one is not responsible for one's own life?
    While I'll concede that your parents' choice to have children is relevant, it matters not in the scheme of things, because you were conceived, developed and born. End of story.
    The question was "do you enjoy your life and the opportunities that result for the most part?" You answered "no." So you do not enjoy your life and the opportunities that resulted for the most part. Well that clears things up a little bit for me. But it also makes me wonder as to why you're advocating a choice which results in the destruction of innocent human life. Perhaps the root of it lies within your answer to my question. By your own answer, "No" you do not enjoy life and the opportunities that resulted for the most part. Very revealing. But why pass that jaded outlook of Nihilism or existentialist depression or whatever it is on into a place where it can potentially be one of many voices calling out for a choice which results in the destruction of innocent human life?
    I'm going to strongly disagree with that assessment. Your arguments have taken my points from where they were initially and blasted off into the realm of where you projected I was going with them and you've done it multiple times. It would not be true to say you hit home on where I was taking those points. Your arguments tried valiantly, sure, but your attempts at clairvoyance did not ultimately succeed. That's why I suggested we just take it one step at a time.
     
  6. danboy9787

    danboy9787 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No. Having unprotected sex does not inevitably lead to pregnancy. We do not have 100% pregnancy rates. You are talking about something controlled by nature. I am talking about something controlled by people.
     
  7. danboy9787

    danboy9787 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How is that a flaw? Should be be able to kill born babies because they aren't adults and just a plague on our society? Having a baby causes sleep deprivation, high costs, pain, less free time, etc. Why can't we just kill all those annoying (*)(*)(*)(*) babies?
     
  8. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Carry on discussing it by all means.




    Sometimes quotes can be very apt.

    Abraham Lincoln it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.


    From birth until about a year old.


    Babies don't find out they have fingers and toes until they're about 5 months old.


    No, we're not. How can we be?


    Being born was just the beginning for me.


    No, I didn't. I answered yes.


    Because the innocent human life inside the body of a woman.

    It's the woman who is a person with rights.


    But I didn't say no.

    Choice results in the woman choosing whether or not she wants to with her pregnancy.

    It's her body, therefore it's her choice.


    Look. You believe women shouldn't choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

    You are trying to justify this point of view in some way by saying we all start off as embryos and if the women who became our mothers had aborted us, then we wouldn't have had a chance of life.

    Well, so what?

    We wouldn't exist, just as my little sister doesn't exist.

    As it is, I do exist and people know and love me.

    I matter - my non existent sister doesn't.


    Pregnant women are people. They can feel and think. They have family that know and love them. They have rights.

    It's they that are important. Not their non existent children.
     
  9. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting argument .. but not quite.

    The fact that the personhood debate is still ongong... (albiet the debate over whether or not the zygote is "a human" is not debated in serious scientific circles)

    ...does not mean that there is a person that exists such that it can be killed.

    Therin lies the fallacy.

    The falacious claim is te claim that a person actually exists such that it can be killed.

    I am not the one making the silly claim so it is not up to me to prove that a person does not exist. It is fallacy to claim that a person exists because it can not be proven that a person does not exist.

    If a it can not be proven that a person exists, then how can someone claim to be able to kill that person ?
     
  10. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Interesting argument .. but not quite.

    The fact that the personhood debate is still ongong... (albiet the debate over whether or not the zygote is "a human" is not debated in serious scientific circles)

    ...does not mean that there is a person that exists such that it can be killed.

    Therin lies the fallacy.

    The falacious claim is the claim that a person actually exists such that it can be killed.

    I am not the one making the silly claim so it is not up to me to prove that a person does not exist. It is fallacy to claim that a person exists because it can not be proven that a person does not exist.

    If a it can not be proven that a person exists, then how can someone claim to be able to kill that person ?
     
  11. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You're right, I guess one has to have moral fiber to be saddened by the killing of a developing human life. Oh well....Carry on aborting, pretty soon the amoral will become extinct by their own doing.
     
  12. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First off .. there is no certainty that aborted would have been will be immoral and that ones that that were not aborted will be moral.

    Even though there is no " developing human", because there is no human in the early stages of pregnancy ..

    I do admit that it is somewhat saddening that a potential human never got a chance.
     
  13. Locke9-05

    Locke9-05 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,450
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Red herring logical fallacy. Whether or not they are apt has no bearing on whether or not they are relevant or carry the argument forward. My point still stands, your point is moot.
    Yes, I realize what a baby is, thanks. However, unlike the false assertion your argument made, babies are not completely unaware. They just simply are not as aware as adult human beings.
    That's an interesting bit of trivia. I'd love to see some substance to support it.
    We're not responsible for our births, but we should be held responsible for our lives. Unless you're suggesting that parents be punished every time their offspring does something to break the law. :rolleyes:
    That is debatable. Conception was the beginning of your life. Your unique human life began at conception. That much is a verifiable scientific fact. Whether or not you were a person at that time is still being discussed all over.
    No you did not. I'll quote your response:

    We simply don't believe she should have the right to destroy innocent life she had a hand in creating. Which is what we're working toward.
    You clearly said "No." when asked the question. You should probably keep track of the progression of the debate.
    There is another body present.
    Yes.

    Not really, I don't think my view even really needs justification. I would say when attempting to preserve innocent human life, no justification is needed. On the other hand I would say ample justification is needed for the destruction of innocent human life. This was merely an ironic side conversation that begun when someone quoted Ronald Reagan.
    Your parents would probably disagree had your sister actually been conceived and miscarried. You cannot logically compare something that never was to something that does exist, is unique and is human.
    Their offspring does exist, you can't really call them "children," but they do exist. That's the thing that pro-choice advocates deny. Perhaps it allows them to sleep at night knowing that they're advocating choice which destroys innocent human life. Funny we were just talking about justification for my side, like I said, I don't need it, but I guess we've found yours. You just close your eyes and imagine that the life growing inside the woman--generally of her own doing--just doesn't exist. How droll.
     
    Thunderlips and (deleted member) like this.
  14. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18

    Yes it is sad. I remember a woman at the gym I knew who had a spontaneous abortion, aka miscarriage. Contrary to so called prolifer's propaganda, she was not devastated by this experience. Sad, yes. But it was just a potential human, not an actual human.

    I wonder how much "pro-lifers" are spending to research preventing spontaneous abortion?
     
  15. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes .. I sometimes wonder "had I done a few things differently, taken a different path .. might things be better"

    What could have been .. what might have been ..

    Perhaps that aborted zygote would have continued to multiply .. creating two new cells which continued multiplying to create more cells. Eventually cells would be created that would form the human and some time later that human would come into existence and soon after be born.

    That child might grow into a man, a man who was devoutly religious and believed that the rapture was coming soon. Perhaps this man would gain power and he would push the nuclear button in order to make the prophesy come true and bring on this rapture ..

    Killing us all
     
  16. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    This is sentimental twaddle. Innocent human life? So you're presuming human's are somehow special in their innocence? What about innocent animal life? Certainly more innocent than humans? Do you eat meat?

    I do. I'm also prochoice. I have no problem with the idea of killing to eat or survive. And I have no problem killing a bundle of living cells that might become human, but isn't yet.

    Or what about the innocent human life many "lifers" have no problem sending to war? Or bombing people who had the bad luck to be born in the wrong place?

    This has nothing to do with "innocence" or "innocent human life". If it did every politician trying to ban abortion would be anti war and vegetarian.
     
  17. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    come come now .. each human cell is "innocent human life" Think how many innocent human lives you are killing as you type on your computer.

    For Shame .. do you not care ? Surely these lives are worth more than the living breathing humans wanting to excape poverty in mexico .. or all those folks in bangladesh.

    Should we not be sending boats to bangladesh to bring a hundred million of those suffering humans over to our rich country ?
     
  18. Blasphemer

    Blasphemer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Being pregnant also does not inevitably lead to babies. We do not have 100% pregnancy success rates. In fact, majority of fertilised eggs fail to become babies.

    The whole potential thing is very subjective and thus irrelevant.
     
  19. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Clearly more research must be done to prevent any human cell, no matter how defective, from dying for any reason.

    Hmmm... sounds like an Outer Limits episode.
     
  20. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The most any of us can say is that we're lucky to be born to parents who wanted us and had the means to care for us, but we're not lucky to be born at all.
    I've never yet seen any new parents proclaim their baby is lucky to be born.

    It's a ridiculous idea that doesn't hold water.


    I had two early miscarriages and like most women my main feeling was of disappointment. Disappointment for me and my husband, that our hopes of spending Christmas as a family were dashed for this year.
     
  21. constructionguy

    constructionguy New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Really ? A baby just ment a postcard with you and the hubby and a baby for that nice holiday photo shoot ?

    Best you never have a baby then. Sorry
     
  22. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    That's not what she said. She said:


    Your reply was manipulative, dishonest and nasty. If I was her I'd report your comment, but maybe I just feel that way after dealing with some particularly odious trolls in the conspiracy subforum.

    [Everyone else: don't go there. They're MAD! MAD, I TELL YOU!]
     
  23. churchmouse

    churchmouse New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    Messages:
    4,739
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why don't you substitute the word……TERMINATE FOR KILL….that would be more realistic don't you think? Why don't pro-aborts use the term kill?

    There is an existing person….a human being in the early stages of pregnancy.

    The flaw in logic has to do in the minds of pro-aborts who condone killing human life.
     
  24. churchmouse

    churchmouse New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    Messages:
    4,739
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It should lead to having babies…but we have this law in the land which gives the mother the right to kill her child in the womb.

    I think today…one in five pregnancies result in abortion.
     
  25. churchmouse

    churchmouse New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    Messages:
    4,739
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I mean this group can't even grasp what science defines as life. LMAO

    Everyone who is born is immoral…because no one is perfect. We all think and have done immoral acts.

    THERE IS MOST CERTAINLY A DEVELOPING HUMAN IN THE WOMB. This is a scientific fact…….it is not a rock…or a piece of paper….or a dog or cat….it is a HUMAN. It has human DNA.
    How tender of you…..so saddened….that a potential human…..LOL

    You don't even know what science says….about the life in the womb…..better go read up.
     

Share This Page