Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[Sheldon]

I have seen tons of criticism but no facts that contradict my position. Perhaps you think your opinions are facts?

You offered only opinions yourself, so a pretty obvious double standard. Anyway there seems little left to discuss,

 

[leroy]

So no then, you have nothing to contradict the medical and biological facts I have presented, thank you for finally admitting that, but sadly failing to have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge the facts I presented.

No, No I said that I dont know for certain if the fetus is a person not, and neither do you. (Correct me if I am wrong)

We usually to kill/destroy something unless we know beyond reasonable doubt that it´s not a person, so why making an arbitrary exception with a fetus?

The decision to abort does not entirely rest on the spurious argument that an insentient blastocyst or foetus is a person, I never said it did

Yes you have been keeping your position on that vague and ambiguous.......................in your opinion, is abortion ok even if the fetus is a person?

. The right to bodily autonomy you have admitted (and I will quote you) that you don't think you should lose, so why should any woman.

If my alternatives are “lose my bodily autonomy or kill an innocent person” I would say that I am morally obligated (and should be legally obligated) to “sacrifice my bodily autonomy.

, was inexplicably an individual person, it would remain insentient and unable to suffer,

The same is true with a man in coma, but your wouldn’t kill him, nor support anyone who wants to kill him just because his existence causes discomfort to somebody.

At this point the irresponsible man that doesn’t want to pay for financial support has a much stronger argument than the pregnant woman.

1 The Pregnant woman what’s to kill a person, the man simply wants to avoid financial responsibility (killing even if painlessly is worst that not paying for your financial obligations)

2 the man has to struggle with 18 months of slavement , the woman only for 9 months,

3 in most of the cases both had the option to not have sex and avoid the struggle of having an unwanted person

Obviously my point is that neither does the man nor the woman have a good argument ……..but I honestly don’t see under what basis would you say that the woman has a good argument and the man doesn’t.

 

[leroy]

Would you care to point to a part of your body that:

1. Isn't topologically connected.
2. Has a clear cellular boundary, between it and you.
3. Was formed independently of your own body.
4. Does not share your immune system.
5. Get's it's oxygen and nutrition from a separate human individual that isn't you.
6. Has a separate immune system from your own.
7. Has a separate metabolism from your own.
8. Is individually sentient, apart from you.

Go on, knock yourself out champ.

Again your argument is fallacious and demonstrably wrong

Why is it fallacious?

I agree at least for the purpose of this discussion that

1 all body parts have this 8 characteristics

2 a fetus has these 8 characteristics.

The problem is that accepting 1 and 2 does not imply that a fetus is part of the body. The conclusion “the fetus is part of the body” doesn’t follow from those 2 premises.

That’s like saying

1 all birds have feathers (assume this is a fact)

2 my pillow has feathers

Therefore my pillow is a bird, (obviously this is fallacious, because the conclusion doesn’t follow but it is analogous to your argument)

You are saying

1 all body parts have those 8 facts (I accept this fact)

2 the fetus has those 8 facts (I accept this fact)

3 therefore the fetus is a body part. (the conclusion doesn’t follow)

Now pleaaaaasse can you make an effort and try to understand why your argument fallacious?


Why your argument wrong:

Because I can provide examples of things that have all 8 characteristics that are clearly not body parts, (like parasites in your body)

The ones I already explained.

You haven’t, which one of the 8 points do parasites fail to have?

We don't have 7, we have 8, your BS hypotheticals are meaningless. What if we have 888, since we are making up hypotheticals?

The point of my question is:

If something has 7 of 8 would that still be a body part? Or 6? or 5?...............or do you need all 8 together to consider it a body part?

For example sometimes the embryo is rejected by the immune system of the mother, so these specific embryos would fail to have point 6……………..does this means that this specific embryos (unlike the others) are not part of the body?

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
So no then, you have nothing to contradict the medical and biological facts I have presented, thank you for finally admitting that, but sadly failing to have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge the facts I presented.

No, No

So you do have evidence then, is it a secret, is that why you won't demonstrate it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

We usually to kill/destroy something unless we know beyond reasonable doubt that it´s not a person, so why making an arbitrary exception with a fetus?

It's not arbitrary and it's not a person. Nor am I making any decision about abortion, as I cannot get pregnant, therefore it is not my body, so I have no say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sheldon
The decision to abort does not entirely rest on the spurious argument that an insentient blastocyst or foetus is a person, I never said it did

Yes you have been keeping your position on that vague and ambiguous.......................in your opinion, is abortion ok even if the fetus is a person?

You've quoted me answering that, and then re-asked it? Why do you need more than one answer to the same question?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sheldon
The right to bodily autonomy you have admitted (and I will quote you) that you don't think you should lose, so why should any woman?

If my alternatives are “lose my bodily autonomy or kill an innocent person” I would say that I am morally obligated (and should be legally obligated) to “sacrifice my bodily autonomy.

Great, but that isn't what I asked is it? Read the question again, here's a clue, it wasn't asking about your bodily autonomy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sheldon
That is demonstrably untrue, and even were it the case, a foetus is not a person, and even if as you choose to delude yourself, I accepted an insentient collection of cells, that was part of a woman's body, was inexplicably an individual person, it would remain insentient and unable to suffer, unlike the woman whose body it was a part of, and whose suffering was a known fact, but that your misogynistic indoctrination has taught you not to care about.

The same is true with a man in coma, but your wouldn’t kill him, nor support anyone who wants to kill him just because his existence causes discomfort to somebody.

Another false equivalence, since the coma patient is not an insentient blastocyst or foetus, and is not part of another person's body. It is NOT attached topologically, initially to the placental wall, then by an umbilical, which is composed of foetal and maternal-origin cells, (2) without a clear or defined boundary between the two, and (3) both of which are part of the woman's body and formed in it, (4) it is immunologically tolerated by the woman's body, it (5) gets all its oxygen and nutrition from the woman's blood, (6) they share an immune system, (7) and a metabolism, and of course (8) the foetus or blastocyst is insentient. Jointly these facts pose a very strong case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

At this point the irresponsible man that doesn’t want to pay for financial support has a much stronger argument than the pregnant woman.

Stronger argument for what?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 The Pregnant woman what’s to kill a person, the man simply wants to avoid financial responsibility (killing even if painlessly is worst that not paying for your financial obligations)

Another false equivalence, as the man is causing suffering of a sentient person just for financial gain, whereas the woman is exercising bodily autonomy to terminate a an unwanted pregnancy, and an insentient blastocyst or foetus is not a person, and can't suffer it's own termination, and while this is not a reason to seek a termination, it does demonstrate that you making a false equivalence here again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 the man has to struggle with 18 months of slavement , the woman only for 9 months,

The man made his decision, the woman has one left, since it is her body.

3 in most of the cases both had the option to not have sex and avoid the struggle of having an unwanted person

Indeed, what's your point?

Obviously my point is that neither does the man nor the woman have a good argument ……..but I honestly don’t see under what basis would you say that the woman has a good argument and the man doesn’t.

I don't think a man has an argument for walking away from a sentient human being he is responsible for, no. The woman paradoxically has every right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, as the two things are not equivalent, since an abortion involves an insentient blastocyst or foetus, which is part of her body, and cannot suffer the termination in any meaningful way, and to deny her that right would enslave her, by removing her bodily autonomy. I believe this has been mentioned by quite a few posters.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Would you care to point to a part of your body that:

1. Isn't topologically connected.
2. Has a clear cellular boundary, between it and you.
3. Was formed independently of your own body.
4. Does not share your immune system.
5. Get's it's oxygen and nutrition from a separate human individual that isn't you.
6. Has a separate immune system from your own.
7. Has a separate metabolism from your own.
8. Is individually sentient, apart from you.

Go on, knock yourself out champ.

Again your argument is fallacious and demonstrably wrong

So is that a no then, you can't indicate a body part of yours that those 8 points don't largely apply to?

I agree at least for the purpose of this discussion that
1 all body parts have this 8 characteristics
2 a fetus has these 8 characteristics.

The problem is that accepting 1 and 2 does not imply that a fetus is part of the body. The conclusion “the fetus is part of the body” doesn’t follow from those 2 premises.

Sure it does, I see the biological facts on the one hand that support that position, but then I see your bare denial on the other. Your denial appears to be entirely arbitrary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 all body parts have those 8 facts (I accept this fact)
2 the fetus has those 8 facts (I accept this fact)
3 therefore the fetus is a body part. (the conclusion doesn’t follow)

Now pleaaaaasse can you make an effort and try to understand why your argument fallacious?

All you've done is admit the biological evidence indicates a body part in every instance, but then arbitrarily denied this is the case for a foetus or blastocyst, The only logical fallacy I see here is your denial, which is clearly a special pleading fallacy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why your argument wrong:

Because I can provide examples of things that have all 8 characteristics that are clearly not body parts, (like parasites in your body)You haven’t, which one of the 8 points do parasites fail to have?

No you can't, we already went through this false claim once.

1. A parasite is defined as a different species.
2. A parasite is not is NOT attached topologically.
3. There is a clear boundary between the host cells and the parasite cells.
4. A parasite did not form in the hosts body attached to it.
5. A parasite does not share the same immune system with the host.
6. A parasite does not share the metabolism with the host
7. A parasite does not share DNA with the host.

A parasite is an invasive organism, it is not part of the hosts body in the way a foetus or blastocyst is. So no you are still wrong, as a parasite does not share all 8 points, unlike all your body parts, as you know admit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

sometimes the embryo is rejected by the immune system of the mother, so these specific embryos would fail to have point 6……………..does this means that this specific embryos (unlike the others) are not part of the body?

No, though I don't see what difference this makes, as this would usually result in the death of the foetus. Researchers think the foetal immune system becomes triggered in a case of mistaken identity. An initial infection in the mother can result in inflammation and arouse the foetal immune system. The foetal immune cells confuse the mother's cells for an invader and mount an attack, in the form of inflammatory chemicals. These chemicals then trigger contractions, leading to preterm labour, the leading cause of infant mortality.

So no this fact does not change the fact that all the evidence indicates that a blastocyst or foetus is part of a woman's body.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

[leroy]

2. A parasite is not is NOT attached topologically.


------------

Aja and what exactly do you mean by "topologically " or should I include this in the terms that you won't define?

 

[Sheldon]

Aja and what exactly do you mean by "topologically " or should I include this in the terms that you won't define?

I don't define terms, dictionaries do this, and why should I waste my time educating you on basic word definitions, when you haven't even the courtesy to address an expansive explanation, and instead obfuscate using semantics over a single word you're ignorant of, as if this is somehow my fault?

I'll grant your boon this once, but from now on I'll not be indulging you. In this instance a topological connection is an uninterrupted and robust connection, with no distinct boundary or gap, and where there are not two separate and distinct parts. Thus an umbilical chord is just such a topological connection.

 

[leroy]

I don't define terms, dictionaries do this, and why should I waste my time educating you on basic word definitions, when you haven't even the courtesy to address an expansive explanation, and instead obfuscate using semantics over a single word you're ignorant of, as if this is somehow my fault?

No sir, If you are demanding for an honest rebuttal to your argument, I have all the right to ask as many questions as I want until I understand your argument.

We are only dealing with point 2 after I understand this point I will ask you questions on point 3, 4 and so on….. If you are not willing to answer questions about your argument, then ou don’t have the right to demand an rebuttal……………..you are basically saying that “refute my argument, but I am not willing to explain it”

In this particular case, definitions are usually subjective and context dependent, different sources define words differently, so I feel I do have the right to explain the definitions of your words in this specific context.

I'll grant your boon this once, but from now on I'll not be indulging you. In this instance a topological connection is an uninterrupted and robust connection, with no distinct boundary or gap, and where there are not two separate and distinct parts. Thus an umbilical chord is just such a topological connection.

So for example the fungi that causes athletes food (a parasite named dermatophytes.) is it topologically connected to the foot? Yes/no why? What is the relevant difference between the connection of the fetus and the connection of the fungi?..................(we are dealing only with point 2)

 

[leroy]

So is that a no then, you can't indicate a body part of yours that those 8 points don't largely apply to?

Again, my argument is that you are using the logical fallacy of “non Sequitur”.where the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.

So yes atleast for the purpose of this discussion I do accept all 8 points, but the conclution “therefore the fetus is part of the body” doesn’t follow.

No, though I don't see what difference this makes, as this would usually result in the death of the foetus. Researchers think the foetal immune system becomes triggered in a case of mistaken identity. An initial infection in the mother can result in inflammation and arouse the foetal immune system. The foetal immune cells confuse the mother's cells for an invader and mount an attack, in the form of inflammatory chemicals. These chemicals then trigger contractions, leading to preterm labour, the leading cause of infant mortality.

So no this fact does not change the fact that all the evidence indicates that a blastocyst or foetus is part of a woman's body.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting but I don’t think you answered my question, is an embryo that was rejected by the immune system of the mother part of t} her body ir is it an independent organism?...........or in general terms, if something has 7 of 8 points, would that make this indicate that its not part of the body?

 

[Sheldon]

No sir, If you are demanding for an honest rebuttal to your argument, I have all the right to ask as many questions as I want until I understand your argument.

Having addressed not one word of it you mean. Only obfuscated and deflected over a single word definition you could have Googled yourself.

definitions are usually subjective

Then look its definition up for yourself, as I said, instead of asking me, and then when I offered that definition, you are blathering on about it being subjective...I think the dishonest reason is perfectly manifest.

At every turn you have failed to address the 8 points in the argument that a blastocyst and foetus is part of a woman's body. All you have is bare denials, dishonest deflection and obfuscation, and it is all here in this thread for anyone to see.

When challenged to point to one of those 8 points that didn't apply to your own foot you failed, but then waved it away anyway without any explanation. When similarly challenged to name any body part those 8 points didn't apply to, you failed again, even admitting they all did, but then had the nerve to again wave it away as irrelevant without further explanation. Finally you rehashed your parasites, and now after falsely claiming several times that a parasite matches all 8 of those biological facts, and receiving an expansive explanation that they do not, which I might add you must have known, you ignored all 8 answers again, and the entirety of my post, and ask me to define a single word from just one point. and a word that has been posted at least a couple of dozen times, and which you could Google yourself in a few seconds, that all of a sudden is a barrier to you responding.

You're fooling no one here champ.

 

[Sheldon]

you are using the logical fallacy of “non Sequitur”.where the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.

Sheldon
"The fallacy of non sequitur (“it does not follow”) occurs when there is not even a deceptively plausible appearance of valid reasoning, because there is an obvious lack of connection between the given premises and the conclusion drawn from them."

leroy
yes at least for the purpose of this discussion I do accept all 8 points,

Well which is it, it can't be such a fallacy is you accept that all 8 points apply to all your body parts, can it, since there obviously is not a lack of connection between premises and the conclusion, as you have just accepted the connection, namely they apply to all your own body parts. Do you think we won't notice you offer precisely nothing to support your assertion beyond a hand waving bare denial.

the conclution “therefore the fetus is part of the body” doesn’t follow.

Why, especially given you accepted all 8 facts apply to all your body parts?

 

[leroy]

Having addressed not one word of it you mean. Only obfuscated and deflected over a single word definition you could have Googled yourself.



Then look its definition up for yourself, as I said, instead of asking me, and then when I offered that definition, you are blathering on about it being subjective...I think the dishonest reason is perfectly manifest.

At every turn you have failed to address the 8 points in the argument that a blastocyst and foetus is part of a woman's body. All you have is bare denials, dishonest deflection and obfuscation, and it is all here in this thread for anyone to see.

When challenged to point to one of those 8 points that didn't apply to your own foot you failed, but then waved it away anyway without any explanation. When similarly challenged to name any body part those 8 points didn't apply to, you failed again, even admitting they all did, but then had the nerve to again wave it away as irrelevant without further explanation. Finally you rehashed your parasites, and now after falsely claiming several times that a parasite matches all 8 of those biological facts, and receiving an expansive explanation that they do not, which I might add you must have known, you ignored all 8 answers again, and the entirety of my post, and ask me to define a single word from just one point. and a word that has been posted at least a couple of dozen times, and which you could Google yourself in a few seconds, that all of a sudden is a barrier to you responding.

You're fooling no one here champ.

So basically you are not willing to explain your argument and define your terms, but at the same time you are expecting a refutation?

It seems a dishonest tactic because any refutation could be dismissed as a straw man,

and now after falsely claiming several times that a parasite matches all 8 of those biological facts,

Some parasites do match the 8 points that you mentioned. … you don’t whant to define your terms Cleary and unambiguously because you want to keep a door open and hide behind semantics.

But ok I´ll say that the fungi that causes athletes foot matches the 8 points.

Which point does it fail and why?

 

[leroy]

Well which is it, it can't be such a fallacy is you accept that all 8 points apply to all your body parts, can it, since there obviously is not a lack of connection between premises and the conclusion, as you have just accepted the connection, namely they apply to all your own body parts. Do you think we won't notice you offer precisely nothing to support your assertion beyond a hand waving bare denial.



Why, especially given you accepted all 8 facts apply to all your body parts?

Your argument seems to be

Premise 1: every body part has those 8 points

Premise 2 The fetus has those 8 points

Therefore the fetus is part of the body. (the conclusion doesn’t follow)

It´s a logical fallacy because the conclusion doesn’t follow form the premises, both of the premises could be true and that would not imply that the conclusion is true.

An analogous argument would be

1 all birds have feathers

2 my pillow has feathers

3 therefore my pillow is a bird.

Note that premise 1 and 2 might be correct, but that doesn’t imply that the conclusion is also correct.

 

[leroy]

So you do have evidence then, is it a secret, is that why you won't demonstrate it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


It's not arbitrary and it's not a person. Nor am I making any decision about abortion, as I cannot get pregnant, therefore it is not my body, so I have no say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------





You've quoted me answering that, and then re-asked it? Why do you need more than one answer to the same question?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Great, but that isn't what I asked is it? Read the question again, here's a clue, it wasn't asking about your bodily autonomy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Another false equivalence, since the coma patient is not an insentient blastocyst or foetus, and is not part of another person's body. It is NOT attached topologically, initially to the placental wall, then by an umbilical, which is composed of foetal and maternal-origin cells, (2) without a clear or defined boundary between the two, and (3) both of which are part of the woman's body and formed in it, (4) it is immunologically tolerated by the woman's body, it (5) gets all its oxygen and nutrition from the woman's blood, (6) they share an immune system, (7) and a metabolism, and of course (8) the foetus or blastocyst is insentient. Jointly these facts pose a very strong case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------



Stronger argument for what?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Another false equivalence, as the man is causing suffering of a sentient person just for financial gain, whereas the woman is exercising bodily autonomy to terminate a an unwanted pregnancy, and an insentient blastocyst or foetus is not a person, and can't suffer it's own termination, and while this is not a reason to seek a termination, it does demonstrate that you making a false equivalence here again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The man made his decision, the woman has one left, since it is her body.



Indeed, what's your point?



I don't think a man has an argument for walking away from a sentient human being he is responsible for, no. The woman paradoxically has every right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, as the two things are not equivalent, since an abortion involves an insentient blastocyst or foetus, which is part of her body, and cannot suffer the termination in any meaningful way, and to deny her that right would enslave her, by removing her bodily autonomy. I believe this has been mentioned by quite a few posters.

Mmmmmm

Pay attention, the argument is:

If the fetus is a person (in the same way a child) then aborting would be (or should be) a worst crime that not providing financial support for your unwanted son.

This argument is based on the premise that killing (even if painlessly) is worse than not paying for your financial obligations.

 

[Sheldon]

So basically you are not willing to explain your argument and define your terms, but at the same time you are expecting a refutation?

I did explain it, more than once, do you really think anyone is fooled by what you're doing?

Some parasites do match the 8 points that you mentioned. …

Name one...then evidence your assertion.

you don’t whant to define your terms Cleary and unambiguously because you want to keep a door open and hide behind semantics.

But ok I´ll say that the fungi that causes athletes foot matches the 8 points.

Great, off you go and evidence that laughable claim.

 

[Sheldon]

Your argument seems to be

Premise 1: every body part has those 8 points

Premise 2 The fetus has those 8 points

Therefore the fetus is part of the body. (the conclusion doesn’t follow)

It´s a logical fallacy because the conclusion doesn’t follow form the premises, both of the premises could be true and that would not imply that the conclusion is true.

All you've done is repeat your bare claim, you have not explained or justified your bare denial. The fallacy occurs when there is an obvious lack of connection between the given premises and the conclusion drawn from them. You already admitted the connection when accepted that all 8 points apply to all your body parts.

An analogous argument would be

We don't need an irrelevant straw man, the meaning is plain enough, I have stated why the evidence strongly supports the conclusion, you have accepted that is the case in every instance of all your body parts, so why are you creating a special pleading fallacy for a blastocyst or foetus?

 

[Sheldon]

Mmmmmm

Pay attention, the argument is:

If the fetus is a person (in the same way a child) then aborting would be (or should be) a worst crime that not providing financial support for your unwanted son.

This argument is based on the premise that killing (even if painlessly) is worse than not paying for your financial obligations.

That non-sequitur has no obvious relevance to my post your responding to, which offered substantive responses to several claims you made, and which you seem to have ignored.

Here it is again then:

So you do have evidence then, is it a secret, is that why you won't demonstrate it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


It's not arbitrary and it's not a person. Nor am I making any decision about abortion, as I cannot get pregnant, therefore it is not my body, so I have no say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------





You've quoted me answering that, and then re-asked it? Why do you need more than one answer to the same question?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Great, but that isn't what I asked is it? Read the question again, here's a clue, it wasn't asking about your bodily autonomy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Another false equivalence, since the coma patient is not an insentient blastocyst or foetus, and is not part of another person's body. It is NOT attached topologically, initially to the placental wall, then by an umbilical, which is composed of foetal and maternal-origin cells, (2) without a clear or defined boundary between the two, and (3) both of which are part of the woman's body and formed in it, (4) it is immunologically tolerated by the woman's body, it (5) gets all its oxygen and nutrition from the woman's blood, (6) they share an immune system, (7) and a metabolism, and of course (8) the foetus or blastocyst is insentient. Jointly these facts pose a very strong case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------



Stronger argument for what?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Another false equivalence, as the man is causing suffering of a sentient person just for financial gain, whereas the woman is exercising bodily autonomy to terminate a an unwanted pregnancy, and an insentient blastocyst or foetus is not a person, and can't suffer it's own termination, and while this is not a reason to seek a termination, it does demonstrate that you making a false equivalence here again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The man made his decision, the woman has one left, since it is her body.



Indeed, what's your point?



I don't think a man has an argument for walking away from a sentient human being he is responsible for, no. The woman paradoxically has every right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, as the two things are not equivalent, since an abortion involves an insentient blastocyst or foetus, which is part of her body, and cannot suffer the termination in any meaningful way, and to deny her that right would enslave her, by removing her bodily autonomy. I believe this has been mentioned by quite a few posters.

As you can see it is quite a substantive response to several claims you made, and none of which you have addressed.

 

[leroy]

Great, off you go and evidence that laughable claim.

That s easy , all I have to do is use Sheldon’s dishonest tactics.

Just look for the term athletes foot in the dictionary, you´ll see that it matches your 8 poins

 

[leroy]

All you've done is repeat your bare claim, you have not explained or justified your bare denial. The fallacy occurs when there is an obvious lack of connection between the given premises and the conclusion drawn from them. You already admitted the connection when accepted that all 8 points apply to all your body parts.



We don't need an irrelevant straw man, the meaning is plain enough, I have stated why the evidence strongly supports the conclusion, you have accepted that is the case in every instance of all your body parts, so why are you creating a special pleading fallacy for a blastocyst or foetus?

---

non sequitur meaning
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement

So my claim is not that there is not a connection (whatever that might mean) my claim is that the conclusion doesn’t follow form the premises as has been shown multiple times.

The fact that body parts have those 8 points, doesn’t show that everything with 8 points is a body part in the same way that the fact that all birds have feathers, doesn´t prove that every object with feathers is a bird.

If you are not willing to admit this simple, trivial and easy mistake in your logical reasoning, then there is no hope for you in understanding more complex stuff.


.

 

[leroy]

That non-sequitur has no obvious relevance to my post your responding to, which offered substantive responses to several claims you made, and which you seem to have ignored.

Here it is again then:

Because the claims that you made are irrelevant to the argument that I made, the fact that you ignored my argument, and responded with irrelevant claims shows that you have truble in responding to my argument.

My argument being “

So ether agree,, or make a relevant objection, your “8 points” are irrelevant in this specific argument

As you can see it is quite a substantive response to several claims you made, and none of which you have addressed.

Perhaps your responded to several claims, but you didn’t responded to the one claim that you are supposed to refute (or grant)

The claim being
If the fetus is a person in the same way a child is, aborting would be a worst crime than not providing financial support for your children”