One last abortion poll (Now with more options!) - Page 51 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

drgoodtrips · #**751** (**permalink**) 09-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

I don't beleive that you comprehend your own arguments, much less mine as I am going to demonstrate.

Clearly, you don't even know what a strawman is. Is the term strawman something that you just heard somewhere and failed to comprehend what it meant, or more likely, failed to to a bit of research to find what it meant? Your pro choice arguments fit the same pattern. Clearly you haven't researched the issue and instead, simply parrot other arguments that you like the sound of without having first found out if they were made by people who had done their research.

This is what a strawman is. Do feel free to try to intelligently apply it to my statements.

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. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

As you can see, it is you who is erecting the strawman. You make the claim that the material in medical school textbooks is opinion and then attack my argument claiming that I am presenting opinion.

Do feel free to provide some credible evidence that suggests that the material found in medical school textbooks that is being taught to medical students is opinion. I would be very interested in seeing that.

Please source words that aren't yours (bolded above) in the future to avoid any more plagiarism, which is a forum rule violation.

For those interested, the bolded section is from here (among others, I believe):

Fallacy: Straw Man

Mrs. M · #**752** (**permalink**) 09-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

How is that not a pro-choice position? You are in favor of pregnant women being able to choose whether or not to bring a child to term. Almost everyone who feels this way recognizes that abortion isn't a positive good. It's just that criminalizing it is worse.

And I feel I also have to present a standard anti-choice argument here, not because I believe it but because if you were consistent you should. If you believe that an embryo at conception is a human being and deserving of human rights, and that abortion is therefore murder, isn't your concern for risk to the pregnant woman from illegal abortion tantamount to putting a murderer's rights ahead of the victim's? Granted that some women will get abortions legal or not (we have history to prove this), won't the number of abortions performed be much fewer if abortion were illegal? (We have history to prove this, too.) And wouldn't it be better to save the lives of all the fetuses that would be brought to term if abortion were outlawed, even at the cost of the lives of the women who die from complications of illegal abortions? (Especially since they brought it on themselves.) The number saved, I think it's safe to say, is much larger than the number lost.

If I believed that an embryo at conception was a human being, I would certainly be thinking this way. In an ideal world, the law would be obeyed perfectly and no one would die from abortion. But we do not live in an ideal world, and must choose the lesser of two admitted evils.

Which you claim you are doing. But legal abortion is the lesser evil only from the perspective of my position about the nature of an embryo. From the perspective of yours, it's the greater evil. I really see no logical way around this, and it says to me that in your heart, you don't believe that the embryo is a human being.

Let's say that my daughter became pregnant and wanted an abortion that I couldn't talk her out of. She would know that I view the "fetus", "embryo", etc. as a baby but she doesn't want to carry it. Now, if I've got the choice between losing my grandchild that I've never met and losing my daughter, whom I gave birth to and raised AND my grandchild, I'm going to choose losing my grandchild. That's no different than a woman having to choose to carry a baby to term while risking her own life or aborting it. Most will choose to save the mother above everything. To be quite honest, I wasn't really thrilled that my daughter had a second child because she had serious complications with her first baby causing her to have to have a C-Section five weeks early. The doctor told her that she would have the same problems with any future pregnancies and that each baby would have to be taken a little earlier. My second granddaughter was thankfully delivered healthy six weeks early, before the major problems could start with my daughter. If the doctor had come told me at some point in the pregnancy that my daughter's life was at risk if she continued to carry the child, you'd best believe that I'd tell him to save her life at all cost.
Now, while I truly believe that an "embryo", "fetus", etc. is a baby, I look at the overall picture and if it's inevitable that one will die either through abortion because it's unwanted or abortion for medical reasons, I'd rather that one unknown person die than have the mother AND the baby die.
Would criminalizing abortion save babies? Of course but it will also screw up a lot of lives either through the deaths of the mothers or by putting 17 year old girls in prison for going to a back alley and getting an abortion. Which would most prefer given the options? Legalized abortion....as distasteful as it is....

PaleRider · #**753** (**permalink**) 09-24-2008

[quote=Mrs. M;1298492]Sorry, but even researchers disagree with you...if they didn't, they wouldn't word it so simplistically. Direct quotes:

""It's analogous to a tennis ball rolling over a table top covered with syrup," "

This is so simple, that I don't quite see how it is that you don't understand it. Perhaps you are overanalyzing. Tell me, if you cover a table top with syrup, and roll a ball over it, is the ball in contact with the table top, or the syrup? Your own paper stated explicitly that the child is coated with L-selectin and the uterine wall is coated with carbohydrate molecules. The coatings are in contact, not the embryo and the uterus. You may view this as a technicality, but human development is a technical subject and the law that is eventually going to have to deal with what it is that a woman is aborting lives and dies by technicalities.

TomBlaze · #**754** (**permalink**) 09-24-2008

It should be legal for one reason and one reason only. Women, especially young women will still get abortions but this time they will be done by back alley wannabe doctors and we will start seeing cases of young women dying as a result of botched abortions. Keeping it legal is keeping it safe.

No one has the right to tell another woman what she can or can't do with her body.

This is a petty issue that has no bearing on whether or not this country succeeds or fails and therefore should not even be an issue in any political race. People who vote based on these issues are the ones killing this country.

PaleRider · #**755** (**permalink**) 09-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hafke

So a clump of tissue is equal to a real life born human? They each have the same rights? Justify this.

You are attempting to place some value on one life that is absent in another. Do you believe that your life is more valuable than the life of a downs child? The justification for my position lies in the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. It establishes that no one has the right to deny the rights of another without due process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hafke

No one has an obligation to keep a fetus alive when they don't want to, regardless of the physical and emotional implications.

You can say it, but unless you can prove some fundamental difference between you and an unborn other than age and maturity, your argument has no validity. You may as well be saying that you are superior to blacks and yoru rights outweigh theirs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hafke

How am I wrong? It's only a logical fallacy if I am, and stating that I am doesn't necessarily make it so.

Can you apply your argument equally to every living human being? If you can't, then you are begging the question and making an assumption about unborns that you have yet to prove. That is how you are wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hafke

If you can prove that the rights of a person don't trump the rights of a cluster of cells (and we both know you can't) then...ah, fuck it.

I take the position that the "cluster of cells" as you like to call them is a living human being. I can provide credible science that also states explicitly that they are living human beings and in this country all human beings are equal before the law.

PaleRider · #**756** (**permalink**) 09-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Let's say that my daughter became pregnant and wanted an abortion that I couldn't talk her out of. She would know that I view the "fetus", "embryo", etc. as a baby but she doesn't want to carry it. Now, if I've got the choice between losing my grandchild that I've never met and losing my daughter, whom I gave birth to and raised AND my grandchild, I'm going to choose losing my grandchild. That's no different than a woman having to choose to carry a baby to term while risking her own life or aborting it. Most will choose to save the mother above everything. To be quite honest, I wasn't really thrilled that my daughter had a second child because she had serious complications with her first baby causing her to have to have a C-Section five weeks early. The doctor told her that she would have the same problems with any future pregnancies and that each baby would have to be taken a little earlier. My second granddaughter was thankfully delivered healthy six weeks early, before the major problems could start with my daughter. If the doctor had come told me at some point in the pregnancy that my daughter's life was at risk if she continued to carry the child, you'd best believe that I'd tell him to save her life at all cost.
Now, while I truly believe that an "embryo", "fetus", etc. is a baby, I look at the overall picture and if it's inevitable that one will die either through abortion because it's unwanted or abortion for medical reasons, I'd rather that one unknown person die than have the mother AND the baby die.
Would criminalizing abortion save babies? Of course but it will also screw up a lot of lives either through the deaths of the mothers or by putting 17 year old girls in prison for going to a back alley and getting an abortion. Which would most prefer given the options? Legalized abortion....as distasteful as it is....

So you are pro choice. Why hide behind the pro life label if you favor legalized abortion?

phungus · #**757** (**permalink**) 09-24-2008

PaleRider I assume that you are against OCs then. It's the only way you can maintain logical consitency with your presented argument, and I'd like to know if you do, or if you're willing to concede conception is not the starting point for the state to assume authority over protecting a new citizen.

Mrs. M · #**758** (**permalink**) 09-24-2008

[quote=PaleRider;1298703]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Sorry, but even researchers disagree with you...if they didn't, they wouldn't word it so simplistically. Direct quotes:

""It's analogous to a tennis ball rolling over a table top covered with syrup," "

This is so simple, that I don't quite see how it is that you don't understand it. Perhaps you are overanalyzing. Tell me, if you cover a table top with syrup, and roll a ball over it, is the ball in contact with the table top, or the syrup? Your own paper stated explicitly that the child is coated with L-selectin and the uterine wall is coated with carbohydrate molecules. The coatings are in contact, not the embryo and the uterus. You may view this as a technicality, but human development is a technical subject and the law that is eventually going to have to deal with what it is that a woman is aborting lives and dies by technicalities.

Yes, it's a technical subject but as I said, without going into the specifics of how and why, it's much easier to just say that it does. The end result is that without some sort of attachment, the embryo dies. Now you can quibble all you want, go into the molecular structure, etc., in an effort to convince everyone of a superior intellect but in the end, you're going to look silly.
You and I both view a "cluster of cells", a "fetus", an "embryo", etc. as human life but yet, it has no brain, can't live without a host, etc. so if you're going to get scientific about one, at least show some honesty about the other.

PaleRider · #**759** (**permalink**) 09-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Please source words that aren't yours (bolded above) in the future to avoid any more plagiarism, which is a forum rule violation.

Fallacy: Straw Man

That is where the definition came from. I wasn't aware that I presented it as my own words since the syntax and wording don't match my own patterns. Do you want links for dictionary definitions as well as that is essentially what the Nizkor project is?

PaleRider · #**760** (**permalink**) 09-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

You and I both view a "cluster of cells", a "fetus", an "embryo", etc. as human life but yet, it has no brain, can't live without a host, etc. so if you're going to get scientific about one, at least show some honesty about the other.

The ability to live without support is not a requisite to being a human being.

PaleRider · #**761** (**permalink**) 09-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by phungus

PaleRider I assume that you are against OCs then. It's the only way you can maintain logical consitency with your presented argument, and I'd like to know if you do, or if you're willing to concede conception is not the starting point for the state to assume authority over protecting a new citizen.

OC's?

Mrs. M · #**762** (**permalink**) 09-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

So you are pro choice. Why hide behind the pro life label if you favor legalized abortion?

If you can't understand where I stand, then you've truly got a closed mind. I have said over and over and over again that I would love for abortions to be illegal. But because I'm able to see the big picture due to maturity and an open mind, I know that we can't make them illegal without killing women. We don't freaking live in a perfect world! If we did, abortions would be illegal and no one would die trying to obtain one in a back alley somewhere. Geez! Is it really THAT difficult to understand?????

Mrs. M · #**763** (**permalink**) 09-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

The ability to live without support is not a requisite to being a human being.

I agree.

PaleRider · #**764** (**permalink**) 09-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

If you can't understand where I stand, then you've truly got a closed mind. I have said over and over and over again that I would love for abortions to be illegal. But because I'm able to see the big picture due to maturity and an open mind, I know that we can't make them illegal without killing women. We don't freaking live in a perfect world! If we did, abortions would be illegal and no one would die trying to obtain one in a back alley somewhere. Geez! Is it really THAT difficult to understand?????

You would love for abortion to be legal, but you would love more for abortion to remain legal. Its easy. I just don't understand why you call yourself pro life when by definition, you are pro choice.

Mrs. M · #**765** (**permalink**) 09-24-2008

Quote:</

View Poll Results: Which position best describes your view of abortion and the law?
Abortion should be legal, without any specific restrictions.	19	20.43%
Abortion should be legal, but subject to some restriction(s).	50	53.76%
Abortion should be banned, but subject to exceptions.	10	10.75%
Abortion should be banned, with the sole exception of when the life of the mother is in jeopardy.	14	15.05%
Voters: 93. You may not vote on this poll