Originally posted by BabyGirl_23
its my religion why wouldnt i believe it?
Also , this argumentation doesn't make sense. "It's my Religion because I believe in it, I believe in it cause it is my Religion".
So, why do you think some God Person made the earth in 7 days (pardon me 6, had to take a nap on the 7th) ...why do you believe that women brought sin to humankind? Why do you believe that the whole earth was flooded and that 7 people were able to survive years while having two animals of each kind on their Arc.....that must have been a freaking big boat.
Originally posted by BabyGirl_23
what ever you believe what ever you want, but your not going to change my religion or my thoughts about abortion! 😠
You should change them though. You are wrong.
I mean you can't even explain to me why you believe in what you believe. Well, I assume you just believe what your Parents brought you up to believe. You should really start to question things. Like the Bible. Since it makes no sense. Kind of like Superman Comics...just that they are more realistic.
Originally posted by Soleran
But then what would we do with you 😱
HEY! I object to misunderstanding my point… 😄
Originally posted by FeceMan
2. Be that as it may, reproduction is largely beneficial--like surgery. Some may die while undergoing it …
Originally posted by BabyGirl_23
ok i volunteer!!!
Oh, I’d like to see you try, girlfriend…
And I’d definitely say:
Bardock: 10
BG: -5
(Silently hums that Pink-tune)
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There is no relationship between the acceptability of the termination of life, and the moral obligation of one to the life of another, e.g. capital punishment is regarded as acceptable, but it does not follow from this that it is morally right. You even admitted as much:
If one were to use impaling as a form of capital punishment, it would override the belief (well, for most) that capital punishment is acceptable.
I did answer your question, "The woman has a moral obligation to the life of the fetus the moment you concede that you have a moral obligation to the famous unconscious violinist."
Answer my question directly.
Now answer mine, "Are you saying that you do not have a moral obligation to the famous unconscious violinist?"
Beneficial to whom? It is certainly not beneficial to the woman who dies in childbirth, which is whom this argument is concerned with.
I never mentioned infants. To the contrary, you miscategorized an infant as a parasite to further your argument:
Not to mention that this commits the logic fallacy of False Analogy, as it draws a conclusion between two relevantly dissimilar things, i.e. a fetus and an infant; the definitional fallacy of Too Broad, as it includes terms that should not be included, i.e. it includes infants among parasites;
the logic fallacy of Prejudicial Language, as it attaches a value to believing the proposition, i.e. equating a fetus to a parasite is morally wrong; the logic fallacy of Appeal to Emotion, as it appeals to emotions or psychological factors in place of support, i.e. it equates abortion to infanticide; and the logic fallacy of Straw Man, as it attacks an argument which is different from the argument I presented, i.e. the right of a woman to bodily integrity is more stringent than the right to life of a fetus.
I was also addressing the other argument presented in the thread that a fetus is not a human; therefore, it is alright to kill it.
Who determines what qualifies as "exhibiting characteristics of personhood?" It is simply not an objective criterion.
So long as an organism is growing, feeding, and being sheltered inside another organism, it is an extension of the host, and therefore, dependent upon the will of the host to allow it to live.
If the termination of life that coincides with "nature taking its course" is acceptable, then why do you continue to argue the point?
Originally posted by FeceMan
Yes, there is.If one were to use impaling as a form of capital punishment, it would override the belief (well, for most) that capital punishment is acceptable.
In this case, the method of termination of life, i.e. impalement affects whether or not termination of life is considered acceptable. It does not affect whether the termination of life is right or wrong.
Moreover, even if we presume that the termination of life is considered acceptable, it does not follow from this that one is not obligated to the life of another. Hence, why there is no relationship between the acceptability of the termination of life, and the moral obligation of one to the life of another.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Answer my question directly.
My question to you is rhetorical. The moment you answer my question, you will have the answer to yours.
Originally posted by FeceMan
I will, shortly enough.
You cannot have it both ways, or does one only have a moral obligation to the life another when it suites your argument?
Originally posted by FeceMan
I was saying that an infant could be categorized as a parasite from a strictly biological sense. This would idea would be used to further the argument of abortion, that a fetus is merely a parasite and thus can be terminated because of this.
To which I replied that an infant is definitionally not a parasite. Hence, why your analogy is false.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Which is exactly why the argument doesn't work for those arguing this angle in favor of abortion.
No, this argument does not work in the case of an infant because an infant does not qualify as a parasite. In the case of a fetus, the argument is valid.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Save it for whob.
Stop making fallacious arguments, and I will stop point them out to you.
Originally posted by FeceMan
I was also addressing the other argument presented in the thread that a fetus is not a human; therefore, it is alright to kill it.
Whether or not the fetus is human is irrelevant.
Originally posted by FeceMan
No, but there are basic factors that can be drawn. However, because of this, people will have different opinions on when personhood begins and thus will argue depending on that stance. Even though Thompson says that it doesn’t matter whether or not the fetus is a person, it still pertains to the general topic of abortion. [I will further address the issue of Thompson’s argument once you answer the question I posed above.]
Exactly, "exhibiting characteristics of personhood" is not an objective criterion for determining personhood. Hence, why it should not be used to do so.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Because there is a difference between “the termination of life due to the refusal of medical treatment or any other form of passive euthanasia” and “the termination of life due to someone killing someone or something”.
The point is that your argument is that abortion is wrong even though in some instances, abortion can be characterized as a form of passive euthanasia which you consider to be acceptable.