Abortion

[McBell]

Not so, nor will overturning that bad decision stop abortions. All overturning R vs W will do is return the decisions to the individual states. So some will ban, some not and others in between.

It is so.
Those states that ban abortion will claim no abortions when in reality there are all manner of abortions being done that are not being reported.

 

[McBell]

It seems pretty clinical and emotion free to me. The interviews with the abortion doctor are also straightforward.

It is an appeal to emotion fallacy.
The "argument" is that the procedure is cruel and inhumane and presented in such a manner to elicit an emotional "oh my god what they did to that baby" reaction

 

[McBell]

Banning illicit drugs mean will drive the market underground. This will make it more dangerous for drug users (unregulated and unsafe quantities, doped with harmful substances).

Conclusion: We should not have drug control laws.

Having gun control laws will drive the market underground. People will attain firearms through illegal and often dangerous means which may pose a greater harm to other members of society.

Conclusion: We should not have gun control laws.

Yeppers.
You seriously whooped that strawmans arse!!!

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

It is an appeal to emotion fallacy.
The "argument" is that the procedure is cruel and inhumane and presented in such a manner to elicit an emotional "oh my god what they did to that baby" reaction

It's like how some wildlife live webcams around my area had to be shut down for a period because some eagles or whatever fed their chicks a cat or the other siblings and people freaked. Welcome to nature, folks. The planet doesn't care about your loved ones.

 

[Nicholas]

Why, then, are you arguing that if we watch an abortion and are grossed out about it, we'd be against it?
I was told while in clinicals during an operation that some people faint. Should we ban all surgeries because someone thought it was gross?

I wrote nothing about pro-abortion folk being 'grossed out'. Why they changed their minds may have more to do with seeing the development of the baby and learning how the piece by piece dismemberment was done. Watching the abortion doctor explain how saving the 'life of the mother' via an abortion is tommyrot, so this fact may have swayed some also.

 

[columbus]

Watching the abortion doctor explain how saving the 'life of the mother' via an abortion is tommyrot,

Nonsense.
My mother would have died in agony years before I was conceived if she didn't have an abortion.
My older sibling implanted before reaching the uterus. S/he would have continued to grow for awhile, until my mother's fallopian tube ruptured. By then, mom would be in agony, then the baby would have died, then the little corpse would begin to decompose in her lower abdomen. This would have caused even worse pain and would probably have resulted in her death.

Sometimes abortion is the pro life option.
Tom

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Watching the abortion doctor explain how saving the 'life of the mother' via an abortion is tommyrot, so this fact may have swayed some also.

Is that your professional opinion, doctor?

 

[Nicholas]

Is that your professional opinion, doctor?

No, but is his - look at the interview:

"Dr. Anthony Levatino is a board certified obstetrician-gynecologist with 40 years of medical experience. He is a physician and lawyer, and taught as associate professor of OB-GYN at Albany Medical Center, where he also served as the Medical Student Director and Residency Program Director. In the early part of his career, Dr. Levatino performed over 1,200 abortions in the first and second trimesters. Dr. Levatino has practiced obstetrics and gynecology in Florida, New York, and currently practices in New Mexico."

 

[निताइ dasa]

Yeppers.
You seriously whooped that strawmans arse!!!

It is my specialty
Actually, I don't think its strawman (but an argument from hypocrisy).My point was to show that the consequences of banning abortions is completely irrelevant to the discussion on its legality. If an action violates the rights of another (a big "if", I know, which is what we are debating here), than no matter how unfavorable the indirect consequences maybe (from the banning/regulation of such an action), that cannot be used as a basis to support non-banning it. Its like saying "we all know that illicit drug use is bad, but if we ban it then people will simply use illicit drugs anyway underground, and that will pose a greater danger to users. Therefore, I am using this as an argument against banning illicit drugs". Of course one can argue in this way, but I'm finding it seems to be inconsistent with the legal principle that we do use today , because it argues from the conclusion and sets it as a underlying principles (where in actuality we should be discussing the underlying principle itself). It is a red herring (appeal to consequences). The claim that women will be forced into unsafe abortions, seems to imply that all women naturally want to get abortions and can't choose to do anything otherwise (i.e that abortion is the only way out, which is not always the case).

Look, as I see it, there are two sides to this issue. If you believe that a fetus does not have a right to life, then abortions should be permissible because it does not violate a right. If you believe that a fetus does have a right to life, then abortion is not permissible, because it does violate a life. There is really no point (unless of-course the mother's life itself is threatened by the pregnancy), where I see the use of the above argument from any of the two positions; hence irrelevant.

It is an appeal to emotion fallacy.
The "argument" is that the procedure is cruel and inhumane and presented in such a manner to elicit an emotional "oh my god what they did to that baby" reaction

Does not mean the conclusion is false. In-fact our society constantly argues in this way.

 

[McBell]

It is my specialty
Actually, I don't think its strawman (but an argument from hypocrisy).My point was to show that the consequences of banning abortions is completely irrelevant to the discussion on its legality. If an action violates the rights of another (a big "if", I know, which is what we are debating here), than no matter how unfavorable the indirect consequences maybe (from the banning/regulation of such an action), that cannot be used as a basis to support non-banning it. Its like saying "we all know that illicit drug use is bad, but if we ban it then people will simply use illicit drugs anyway underground, and that will pose a greater danger to users. Therefore, I am using this as an argument against banning illicit drugs". Of course one can argue in this way, but I'm finding it seems to be inconsistent with the legal principle that we do use today , because it argues from the conclusion and sets it as a underlying principles (where in actuality we should be discussing the underlying principle itself). It is a red herring (appeal to consequences). The claim that women will be forced into unsafe abortions, seems to imply that all women naturally want to get abortions and can't choose to do anything otherwise (i.e that abortion is the only way out, which is not always the case).

Look, as I see it, there are two sides to this issue. If you believe that a fetus does not have a right to life, then abortions should be permissible because it does not violate a right. If you believe that a fetus does have a right to life, then abortion is not permissible, because it does violate a life. There is really no point (unless of-course the mother's life itself is threatened by the pregnancy), where I see the use of the above argument from any of the two positions; hence irrelevant.

Except my post you replied to was in direct response to the claim that the only way to "significantly reduce" abortions is to ban them...

Does not mean the conclusion is false. In-fact our society constantly argues in this way.

It is sloppy thinking though when trying to support a legality....

 

[निताइ dasa]

Except my post you replied to was in direct response to the claim that the only way to "significantly reduce" abortions is to ban them...

Was it though? My original post was not a reply at all. Merely a point which I was trying to make.

It is sloppy thinking though when trying to support a legality....

I wouldn't call it sloppy. When we detract emotions from our law making process, then it takes the humanity out of them. A lot of the moral truths which we hold to be evident, are established either through intuitive or emotional appeal. If it weren't for emotional appeal, then a lot of our social reform movements (black rights, woman rights, LGBT rights) would not have had the success they experienced. If the goal of a legal system is to protect established moral truths (or rights), then it holds that emotion cannot be disregarded completely in the law making process. However, I am not saying that we should base laws whimsically on emotional appeal either.

 

[McBell]

Was it though? My original post was not a reply at all. Merely a point which I was trying to make.

Fair enough

I wouldn't call it sloppy.

I do call it sloppy.

When we detract emotions from our law making process, then it takes the humanity out of them.

What is humane about banning same sex marriage?

A lot of the moral truths which we hold to be evident, are established either through intuitive or emotional appeal.

Example please

If it weren't for emotional appeal, then a lot of our social reform movements (black rights, woman rights, LGBT rights) would not have had the success they experienced.

Bold empty claim.
One which I disagree with.

If the goal of a legal system is to protect established moral truths (or rights),

Is it your claim that moral truths and rights are the same thing?

then it holds that emotion cannot be disregarded completely in the law making process.

I agree that emotion can not and will not be completely removed from the legal process.
However, when an argument is nothing but an appeal to emotion....

However, I am not saying that we should base laws whimsically on emotional appeal either.

You mean like the same sex marriage bans?

 

[निताइ dasa]

What is humane about banning same sex marriage?

You're bringing this issue up not me. Can't really respond to that. In-fact your statement seems to imply that there is an emotional aspect to this issue hahaha.

Example please

There are a lot. Moral truths like "all human beings are born equal", or "it is worthy to preserve life" or "we should not treat human beings as a means to an end", "pleasure is a desirable goal" arise from internal intuition. Since we would not will such a violation upon us, we also (due to empathy) would not will it upon others. I see a huge emotional component here. In-fact many moral theories use emotional and intuitive appeal as a guideline in their formulation. A challenge (if you are up to it, or anyone reading this for that matter ) : Could you argue why something like rape is wrong from fundamentals (i.e without assuming established rights) without appealing to intuition or emotion? Trust me, its really hard to do.

Bold empty claim.
One which I disagree with.

Sure. In my examination of these movements, I see them filled to the brim with emotional appeal. Imagine, what King's famous "I have a dream" speech would be like, if we took all the emotional appeal out of it.

You mean like the same sex marriage bans?

We need to look at the basis of such emotion. At times such emotional responses may be based upon long held prejudices, or inconsistent with itself, but at other times they do have a rational basis (or at least a factor which is worthy of consideration).

Same-sex marriage is interesting. The both sides fire emotional appeals at each other . It is very hard to defend the banning of same sex marriage logically, but I have seen it done (and the arguments are generally quite consistent, like the Aquinas' argument from Natural Law for example).Not that I agree with it, but it can be done.

Is it your claim that moral truths and rights are the same thing?

They fall under the same category. Moral theory has two branches, the theory of right conduct, and the theory of value (which is the underlying principle behind rights).

 

[BilliardsBall]

You're dodging the question.

In what way is belief in the existence of your god more justified than belief that the Moon is made of cheese?

Let's say the beliefs are equally justified. An overwhelmingly majority of persons believe:

1. The Moon isn't a dairy product.

2. God exists.

Then again, an overwhelming majority of persons are rational. Do you have a point?

Why would you expect me to know or care?

Edit: and addressing the claims of the Bible before you've even established that God exists is putting the cart before the horse.

Because if you don't know the first thing of what I believe regarding God and the Bible, you clearly cannot continue to say "my beliefs are without substance." You have to know content before critiquing substance. Your skeptic's stance, unfortunately, is typical, presumptive.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let's say the beliefs are equally justified. An overwhelmingly majority of persons believe:

1. The Moon isn't a dairy product.

2. God exists.

Then again, an overwhelming majority of persons are rational. Do you have a point?

Appeal to numbers? Is that all you have to support your beliefs?

 

[McBell]

Appeal to numbers? Is that all you have to support your beliefs?

That is all I have seen him present thus far.

Of course, I do not claim to have seen every one of his claims.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are confusing ad populum and direct causation with clear correlation. Your alternative theory: Man made up God of whole cloth.

Man imagining God is unsupported by scientific testing: There is no control group to test your assumptions. We are the only humans we know in this universe. You have an assumption - people must do this on their own, thousands of times across hundreds of cultures. What we DO have is the known data--the overwhelming majority of humans, ever, disagree with you.

There is a STRONG correlation between people and God. That doesn't prove causation. There is a strong correlation between dropping an item and it hitting the ground. Dark matter is assumed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are confusing ad populum and direct causation with clear correlation.

Heh... when YOU use argumentum ad populum, the number of people who accept the idea is a measure of how awesome the idea is.

Your alternative theory: Man made up God of whole cloth.

Ah - false dichotomy. Thank you for correcting the my impression that all you had was argumentum ad populum; apparently, you have a whole range of logical fallacies.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Appeal to numbers? Is that all you have to support your beliefs?

Again, I see a lack of willingness to understand the important differences between causation and correlation. We can never have pure causation proved to a jury--if you were an eyewitness to an alleged crime, you MUST not have been allowed on the jury! You are looking to link correlation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Heh... when YOU use argumentum ad populum, the number of people who accept the idea is a measure of how awesome the idea is.



Ah - false dichotomy. Thank you for correcting the my impression that all you had was argumentum ad populum; apparently, you have a whole range of logical fallacies.

I'm using correlation and causation, defining terms, establishing common ground. Please don't be contrary just to be so.

If there is no God, man made up God. If there is a God, man didn't make him up. Please explain my false dichotomy here so I may be corrected, and further, so I may apologize to you for my error.