Originally posted by dadudemonCouple of things:
1. What you just did is a red-herring. It is very much irrelevant to the point I made. You ignored the point I made and then tried to paint my argument as silly with an illogical comparison.
2. That's in illogical comparison. A tree, according to some, may very well be better than a human. Additionally, I compared a human situation to another human situation, not a seemingly non-sapient organism from the Plantae Kingdom. I mean, at least keep your comparative arguments to the same Kingdom much less species. 🙂
1. You did not actually made a point, since you did not clarify what you meant with your comparison sentence, however it is pretty apparent that you meant to imply that my thinking could be likened to that of the nazis, I explained why that is not the case.
2. It is exactly my point though, we can insert anything into the sentence and then quibble about which is correct and which is not. You make your points why you think it doesn't apply to trees, but doesn't apply to foetuses, and I make my points why it applies to foetuses but not Jews.
Originally posted by dadudemon
This is a much better argument but it is wrong. I agree that abortion should be available for first trimester pregnancies. I still morally oppose abortions except in the following cases: medical necessity, rape, incest, or in the cases of the mother being harmfully (to either herself or the developing baby) mentally ill.
That's fair enough, our real world implementation would be very similar then, we just disagree on the moral circumstances.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Careful not to try to represent my perspective. I was only providing alternatives to your perspective (which should be clear that they are not my perspective since I made my perspective quite clear). Some do hold that incarceration is inhumane. They are a minority, obviously, but they make good arguments. "Death is better than life in prison." That's not an uncommon statement. Look:
I should perhaps have made it more clear by saying "In that case we would disagree". I was aware that you gave multiple perspectives not necessarily your own.
Originally posted by dadudemon
A argumentation tactic is to make an argument that you don't agree with but you think your opponent will latch onto. The trick is, you already have a counter for your predicted opponents counter. After your opponent latches onto that argument, you then counter with the planned counter which is designed to end the point of debate as the other party sees the folly in their line of thinking.It can be a risky debate tactic but the payoff is good for both parties. You see the error in your perspective, and I've made my point more clear.
The only thing unsatisfactory from your response is I did not get, "I see what you're saying..." It still allows for you to disagree but as long as you acknowledge that it can be considered more humane to execute an unrepentant murderer, then my point is complete.
Well, I am glad you are happy with this outcome, but I would not have hidden it had you just asked straight. My support for the right to assisted suicide is well documented on this site.
Originally posted by dadudemon
We are? How?And we can do that? How?
Are we the anti-abortion police? Who goes around enforcing not-abortions?
"Hold it right there, doctor! Put the fetus vacuum down! You're under arrest by the anti-abortion police."
😆
I don't have time for that. And if I did, I'd pretend to let the doctor off just so I could get his/her vacuum (I'd confiscate it under the "criminal asset forfeiture" precedence) to get those pesky pieces of trash in the absurdly tiny cracks and crevasses in my car.
Of course, I'm mostly joking. But enforcing anti-abortion policies is hard to do and it is harmful.
Women who want abortions but do not have a readily available and legal means will get abortions in back-alleys or try to use "home remedies." It is a story as old as modern humankind. I think tolerating first trimester abortions is the tolerable solution. I still oppose it on moral grounds.
Again, we agree in implementation then, although I would probably go further than even the first trimester.
My argument was not that we currently police women and doctors who provide abortions (since it is legally permitted in both your and my country), I'm saying that those people who want to police it are forcing women to continue their pregnancy (or go to illegal and unsafe means as they have done in the past, and potentially be punished for that).