Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 74

Thread: Planned Parenthood awarded $2.3 million for secret videos

  1. Top | #31
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,687
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    Hey Lion, you up to my challenge?
    He replied with some very silly strawmen.

    I will reply with what I believe to be the anti-abortion position:

    I was told by an authority figure that it clearly says abortion is wrong in the bible (but I never read it for myself), and that is all I need to know about anything. If I don't fight it, then I won't get into heaven, and that is the only thing that matters... my soul, and nothing and no one else.

  2. Top | #32
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,749
    Rep Power
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    Hey Lion, you up to my challenge?
    Sure. It's a good way of making sure both sides aren't inadvertently or deliberately talking past one another.
    Frankly, its hardly a mystery what makes the pro-choice side feel their position is justified and in good faith, you have to take them at their word if you expect them to extend the same courtesy.
    And like many others who were in high school debate teams, I have argued for positions with which I strongly disagreed and in doing so, put myself into the shoes of people I don't understand.

    I think, that they think, to varying degrees, one or more of the following;

    - There's really nothing wrong with humans in power, deciding what constitutes the definition of a human with less power.

    - The end justifies the means. (Lesser of two evils - my unhappiness is worse than your not being allowed to live.)

    - Abortion is a civic duty. It would be wrong not to allow/force women to abort an unwanted baby. (Unwanted by the government. Unwanted by the father. Unwanted by the mother.)

    - This isn't even a moral dilemma full stop. Mind your own business. (No, seriously, what's it got to do with you?)

    - Having an abortion isn't that bad. Other people do much worse things. (Tu quoque)

    - Abortion must not wrong because otherwise the Supreme Court wouldn't have allowed it. (Appeal to authority)

    - Abortion must not be wrong because X percent of the people in an opinion poll said so. (Ad populam fallacy)

    - There's no God. Life is cruel. Life is short.


    And if all of these pro-choice beliefs were objectively true (or even just unfalsifiable because of moral relativism,) then they are correct and abortion is no more immoral than breaking wind in an elevator.

    So you're not up to my challenge.
    Did I miss one?
    Are some or all of those NOT the sincerely held beliefs of my pro-choice interlocutor?

    Or did I misunderstood your challenge?
    Maybe I did. Because I have to say, it wasn't very challenging.

    What exactly was your 'challenge' if not to prove that you understand your opponents POV?

  3. Top | #33
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,749
    Rep Power
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    Hey Lion, you up to my challenge?
    He replied with some very silly strawmen.
    Nope. I didn't make up any. Those (variously) ARE the sincerely held views of pro-choicers.

    I will reply with what I believe to be the anti-abortion position:

    I was told by an authority figure that it clearly says abortion is wrong in the bible (but I never read it for myself), and that is all I need to know about anything. If I don't fight it, then I won't get into heaven, and that is the only thing that matters... my soul, and nothing and no one else.
    Yes! That IS a sincerely held view of many pro-lifers.
    How come my summary amounts to a strawman but yours isn't.

  4. Top | #34
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,687
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    I think conception is a much more scientific marker of the start of life than a ~ 150mm long birth canal.

    You mentioned the difference between a crime of omission and commission- leaving a baby in a dumpster. But in the dumpster scenario there is a deliberate intent to act in a way which, on any test of reasonableness, would be understood as causing the death of the baby.
    .. like a mother smoking a cigarette during her pregnancy?
    .. alcohol?
    .. eating McDonalds?
    .. not taking vitamins?

    CAREFUL about what you are calling a crime of omission against a human being.

  5. Top | #35
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,687
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post

    Nope. I didn't make up any. Those (variously) ARE the sincerely held views of pro-choicers.
    if you didn't just make them up, then you would be able to link us to the source of them.. feel free.

    Yes! That IS a sincerely held view of many pro-lifers.
    How come my summary amounts to a strawman but yours isn't.
    Apparently, honesty exists only on one side of this argument... I guess.

  6. Top | #36
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,749
    Rep Power
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    I think conception is a much more scientific marker of the start of life than a ~ 150mm long birth canal.

    You mentioned the difference between a crime of omission and commission- leaving a baby in a dumpster. But in the dumpster scenario there is a deliberate intent to act in a way which, on any test of reasonableness, would be understood as causing the death of the baby.
    .. like a mother smoking a cigarette during her pregnancy?
    .. alcohol?
    .. eating McDonalds?
    .. not taking vitamins?

    CAREFUL about what you are calling a crime of omission against a human being.

    Yes. Be careful.
    Absolutely.
    This is the life of another human being.
    Actions have consequences.

  7. Top | #37
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,749
    Rep Power
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post

    Nope. I didn't make up any. Those (variously) ARE the sincerely held views of pro-choicers.
    if you didn't just make them up, then you would be able to link us to the source of them.. feel free.
    What? You don't believe me? You think I'm making this up?
    https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=...ypeahead_click


    Yes! That IS a sincerely held view of many pro-lifers.
    How come my summary amounts to a strawman but yours isn't.
    Apparently, honesty exists only on one side of this argument... I guess.
    Well then you can piss off.
    I don't want you to waste your effing time talking to someone you think is a liar.
    Bye

  8. Top | #38
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    3,108
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    6,019
    Rep Power
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post

    Nope. I didn't make up any. Those (variously) ARE the sincerely held views of pro-choicers.
    if you didn't just make them up, then you would be able to link us to the source of them.. feel free.

    Yes! That IS a sincerely held view of many pro-lifers.
    How come my summary amounts to a strawman but yours isn't.
    Apparently, honesty exists only on one side of this argument... I guess.
    I posted a rebuttal on the previous page, but apparently Lion doesn't know how to actually read through previous comments

    At any rate, it doesn't seem to know that their straw-man arguments are based on their inability to spot the conflation it makes between human (genetic), human (person) and human (proto-person) in their characterization of pro-choice positions. They can't process the idea that for people who are pro-choice, the critical value of human (person) is not derived from being human (genetic). They just can't process the idea, which is why I can characterize their arguments, but they cannot characterize mine, even both it and myself reject relativism.

  9. Top | #39
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,607
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    8,996
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post


    So you're not up to my challenge.
    Did I miss one?
    Are some or all of those NOT the sincerely held beliefs of my pro-choice interlocutor?

    Or did I misunderstood your challenge?
    Maybe I did. Because I have to say, it wasn't very challenging.

    What exactly was your 'challenge' if not to prove that you understand your opponents POV?
    Yeah, you missed mine:

    The argument over when life begins is a red herring designed to obscure the actual issue, which is that nobody is entitled to occupy or colonize the physical body of anyone without their continued and instantly revocable consent.

  10. Top | #40
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    25,212
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    121,964
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    I think, that they think, to varying degrees, one or more of the following;
    Some problems here.

    There's really nothing wrong with humans in power, deciding what constitutes the definition of a human with less power.
    And who is supposed to decide? What gives them the right to make the decision? Remember, most of us don't believe in your sky daddy and thus do not accept pronouncements from him.

    - The end justifies the means. (Lesser of two evils - my unhappiness is worse than your not being allowed to live.)
    Error: Conclusion assumed in argument.

    - Abortion is a civic duty. It would be wrong not to allow/force women to abort an unwanted baby. (Unwanted by the government. Unwanted by the father. Unwanted by the mother.)
    You present allow/force as if they are the same when they most definitely aren't.

    - This isn't even a moral dilemma full stop. Mind your own business. (No, seriously, what's it got to do with you?)
    We don't see a person being killed and thus see no moral issue.

    - Having an abortion isn't that bad. Other people do much worse things. (Tu quoque)
    Haven't heard this one.

    - Abortion must not wrong because otherwise the Supreme Court wouldn't have allowed it. (Appeal to authority)
    The Supreme Court allowed it because they saw that all the laws against it were clearly unconstitutional. They weren't about protecting the fetus, they were about punishing the woman.

    - Abortion must not be wrong because X percent of the people in an opinion poll said so. (Ad populam fallacy)
    We look to the Constitution--the state keeps out of personal matters without a compelling reason. The burden is on your side to show that compelling reason.

    - There's no God. Life is cruel. Life is short.
    If there's a deity let him prove himself.

    And if all of these pro-choice beliefs were objectively true (or even just unfalsifiable because of moral relativism,) then they are correct and abortion is no more immoral than breaking wind in an elevator.
    You're the one using the unfalsifiable argument.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •