« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9   Go Down

A question aimed at pro-lifers

  • 243 Replies
  • 44222 Views
*

Emir Parkreiner

  • 409
  • Killer with a conscience.
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #60 on: November 26, 2008, 01:10:26 PM »
Logged
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #61 on: November 26, 2008, 01:10:49 PM »
Logged
*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #62 on: November 26, 2008, 01:10:58 PM »
Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 26, 2008, 01:10:26 PM
Quote from: Hara Taiki on November 26, 2008, 01:09:12 PM
Strawman.
It's in her body.

Your mother should have been smarter when you were in there, then?
Logged
Quote from: Wendy on December 31, 1969, 04:00:00 PM
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.
*

Emir Parkreiner

  • 409
  • Killer with a conscience.
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #63 on: November 26, 2008, 01:13:29 PM »
Logged
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #64 on: November 26, 2008, 01:13:56 PM »
Logged
?

KingMan

  • 3025
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #65 on: November 26, 2008, 01:15:36 PM »
Quote from: Wendy on November 26, 2008, 01:08:12 PM
Quote from: KingMan on November 26, 2008, 01:04:07 PM
Quote from: Wendy on November 26, 2008, 12:44:59 PM
Quote from: KingMan on November 26, 2008, 12:44:19 PM
Quote from: Hara Taiki on November 26, 2008, 12:42:37 PM
Quote from: KingMan on November 26, 2008, 12:42:13 PM
Quote from: Hara Taiki on November 26, 2008, 12:40:07 PM
It's the woman's choice no matter what. If she doesn't want a baby, no one can force her to have one.
But we can stop her from killing it.

No, we can't.
why not?

Because she should have the right to decide what to do with her own body.
She does. but that babies life is not hers.
She has no moral responsibility to the baby, no more than to a hobo in the street. In a perfect world, both would be saved, and wanted, but that is not the case.
So its okay to kill hobos? So why is it you are not allowed to kill a baby once its been born?
Logged
I hate myself for coming here
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #66 on: November 26, 2008, 01:22:04 PM »
It's no longer parasitic and there's no physical burden on the mother internally.
Logged
*

Emir Parkreiner

  • 409
  • Killer with a conscience.
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #67 on: November 26, 2008, 01:22:44 PM »
Your argument:

Quote
1. If something is inside a woman's body she can do what she wants with it.

2. A fetus is inside a woman's body.
______________________________
∴ A woman may do what she wants with a fetus.

Which is reducible to:
Quote
1. If something is inside a woman's body she can do what she wants with it.

2. X is inside a woman's body.
______________________________
∴ A woman may do what she wants with X.

So replace X with penis and the structure of the argument is maintained. A strawman is a misrepresentation of an argument, if you claim that I misrepresent yours you must demonstrate how.

Another counterexample: Organs are inside a woman?s body but the law dissallowes her from selling them, so whether somthing is inside my body or not is irrelevant
Logged
*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #68 on: November 26, 2008, 01:53:32 PM »
Quote from: KingMan on November 26, 2008, 01:15:36 PM
Quote from: Wendy on November 26, 2008, 01:08:12 PM
Quote from: KingMan on November 26, 2008, 01:04:07 PM
Quote from: Wendy on November 26, 2008, 12:44:59 PM
Quote from: KingMan on November 26, 2008, 12:44:19 PM
Quote from: Hara Taiki on November 26, 2008, 12:42:37 PM
Quote from: KingMan on November 26, 2008, 12:42:13 PM
Quote from: Hara Taiki on November 26, 2008, 12:40:07 PM
It's the woman's choice no matter what. If she doesn't want a baby, no one can force her to have one.
But we can stop her from killing it.

No, we can't.
why not?

Because she should have the right to decide what to do with her own body.
She does. but that babies life is not hers.
She has no moral responsibility to the baby, no more than to a hobo in the street. In a perfect world, both would be saved, and wanted, but that is not the case.
So its okay to kill hobos? So why is it you are not allowed to kill a baby once its been born?

I don't condone killing hobos, but I still don't think that I have a moral obligation to personally do something about ones situation if I see one on the street. This is the same with a fetus whose mother does not want a child.
Logged
Quote from: Wendy on December 31, 1969, 04:00:00 PM
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #69 on: November 26, 2008, 02:15:47 PM »
Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 26, 2008, 01:22:44 PM
Your argument:

Quote
1. If something is inside a woman's body she can do what she wants with it.

2. A fetus is inside a woman's body.
______________________________
∴ A woman may do what she wants with a fetus.

Which is reducible to:
Quote
1. If something is inside a woman's body she can do what she wants with it.

2. X is inside a woman's body.
______________________________
∴ A woman may do what she wants with X.

So replace X with penis and the structure of the argument is maintained. A strawman is a misrepresentation of an argument, if you claim that I misrepresent yours you must demonstrate how.

Another counterexample: Organs are inside a woman?s body but the law dissallowes her from selling them, so whether somthing is inside my body or not is irrelevant


A fetus is not a required part of her to survive.
Logged
*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #70 on: November 26, 2008, 02:16:54 PM »
And we are also not talking about selling the fetus. That, were it an issue, I would love to outlaw.
Logged
Quote from: Wendy on December 31, 1969, 04:00:00 PM
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.
*

Emir Parkreiner

  • 409
  • Killer with a conscience.
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #71 on: November 26, 2008, 02:17:24 PM »
Quote from: Hara Taiki on November 26, 2008, 02:15:47 PM
Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 26, 2008, 01:22:44 PM
Your argument:

Quote
1. If something is inside a woman's body she can do what she wants with it.

2. A fetus is inside a woman's body.
______________________________
∴ A woman may do what she wants with a fetus.

Which is reducible to:
Quote
1. If something is inside a woman's body she can do what she wants with it.

2. X is inside a woman's body.
______________________________
∴ A woman may do what she wants with X.

So replace X with penis and the structure of the argument is maintained. A strawman is a misrepresentation of an argument, if you claim that I misrepresent yours you must demonstrate how.

Another counterexample: Organs are inside a woman?s body but the law dissallowes her from selling them, so whether somthing is inside my body or not is irrelevant


A fetus is not a required part of her to survive.
Neither is a kidney.
Logged
*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #72 on: November 26, 2008, 02:19:18 PM »
Aborting a fetus will not lead to increased crime rates. Making it legal for common folks to sell organs will.
Logged
Quote from: Wendy on December 31, 1969, 04:00:00 PM
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #73 on: November 26, 2008, 02:25:50 PM »
Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 26, 2008, 02:17:24 PM
Quote from: Hara Taiki on November 26, 2008, 02:15:47 PM
Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 26, 2008, 01:22:44 PM
Your argument:

Quote
1. If something is inside a woman's body she can do what she wants with it.

2. A fetus is inside a woman's body.
______________________________
∴ A woman may do what she wants with a fetus.

Which is reducible to:
Quote
1. If something is inside a woman's body she can do what she wants with it.

2. X is inside a woman's body.
______________________________
∴ A woman may do what she wants with X.

So replace X with penis and the structure of the argument is maintained. A strawman is a misrepresentation of an argument, if you claim that I misrepresent yours you must demonstrate how.

Another counterexample: Organs are inside a woman?s body but the law dissallowes her from selling them, so whether somthing is inside my body or not is irrelevant


A fetus is not a required part of her to survive.
Neither is a kidney.

Wrong. Argument failure.
Logged
*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #74 on: November 26, 2008, 02:27:32 PM »
A kidney is required to survive.
Logged
Quote from: Baseball4Life on April 16, 2010, 09:54:41 AM
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>
*

Emir Parkreiner

  • 409
  • Killer with a conscience.
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #75 on: November 26, 2008, 02:28:25 PM »
Quote from: Hara Taiki on November 26, 2008, 02:25:50 PM
Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 26, 2008, 02:17:24 PM
Quote from: Hara Taiki on November 26, 2008, 02:15:47 PM
Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 26, 2008, 01:22:44 PM
Your argument:

Quote
1. If something is inside a woman's body she can do what she wants with it.

2. A fetus is inside a woman's body.
______________________________
∴ A woman may do what she wants with a fetus.

Which is reducible to:
Quote
1. If something is inside a woman's body she can do what she wants with it.

2. X is inside a woman's body.
______________________________
∴ A woman may do what she wants with X.

So replace X with penis and the structure of the argument is maintained. A strawman is a misrepresentation of an argument, if you claim that I misrepresent yours you must demonstrate how.

Another counterexample: Organs are inside a woman?s body but the law dissallowes her from selling them, so whether somthing is inside my body or not is irrelevant


A fetus is not a required part of her to survive.
Neither is a kidney.

Wrong. Argument failure.
How many kidneys you got? Know any math?
Logged
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #76 on: November 26, 2008, 02:29:39 PM »
2. However, You can survive with one, but not without any (dialysis machines do not count as they are not inside you). So your argument is still nullified by factual information.
Logged
*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #77 on: November 26, 2008, 02:29:53 PM »
Two. That's not what you said, she does require a kidney to survive.
Logged
Quote from: Baseball4Life on April 16, 2010, 09:54:41 AM
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>
?

Dark Knight

  • 103
  • There are no athiests in Foxholes
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #78 on: November 26, 2008, 03:12:39 PM »
Simple fact is that abortion is the killing of babies that is all.  If you chose to name it something else, so be it.  again your just calling it other words to make you feel better.  btw a baby that is B fed by the mother instead of bottle fed, that would mean the baby is still feeding of the mother and is still a parasite then. 

Logged
He who goes to bed with itchy but, wakes up with stinky finger.
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #79 on: November 26, 2008, 06:55:54 PM »
Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 26, 2008, 01:08:38 PM
When you enagage in consensual sex witha  woman, does she have the right to rip off your penis?

Since when is a penis attached to the woman? Is it also taking nutrients and affecting the health of the woman? What a weird penis you must have.
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #80 on: November 26, 2008, 06:59:09 PM »
Quote from: Dark Knight on November 26, 2008, 03:12:39 PM
Simple fact is that abortion is the killing of babies that is all.

Removal of fetus. 

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 26, 2008, 03:12:39 PM
again your just calling it other words to make you feel better.

Using more accurate phrases does not make us feel better, it just makes you wrong, or at the very least, inaccurate.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 26, 2008, 03:12:39 PM
btw a baby that is B fed by the mother instead of bottle fed, that would mean the baby is still feeding of the mother and is still a parasite then.

Perhaps if you go off the loose definition of a parasite and abandon the solely biological one.
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
?

T.T. Monsieur

Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #81 on: November 26, 2008, 07:02:02 PM »
Is someone able to link some competent pro-lifers over here? This isn't even a debate anymore.
Logged
?

Dark Knight

  • 103
  • There are no athiests in Foxholes
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #82 on: November 26, 2008, 07:13:33 PM »
Quote from: T.T. Monsieur on November 26, 2008, 07:02:02 PM
Is someone able to link some competent pro-lifers over here? This isn't even a debate anymore.
thats what you always say after you lose the debates.  Thank you for the compliment.
Logged
He who goes to bed with itchy but, wakes up with stinky finger.
?

Dark Knight

  • 103
  • There are no athiests in Foxholes
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #83 on: November 26, 2008, 07:20:07 PM »
Quote from: divito the truthist on November 26, 2008, 06:59:09 PM
Quote from: Dark Knight on November 26, 2008, 03:12:39 PM
Simple fact is that abortion is the killing of babies that is all.

Removal of fetus. 

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 26, 2008, 03:12:39 PM
again your just calling it other words to make you feel better.

Using more accurate phrases does not make us feel better, it just makes you wrong, or at the very least, inaccurate.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 26, 2008, 03:12:39 PM
btw a baby that is B fed by the mother instead of bottle fed, that would mean the baby is still feeding of the mother and is still a parasite then.

Perhaps if you go off the loose definition of a parasite and abandon the solely biological one.
Your 4 pages behind and as usual talking in circles as does everyone when a debate is lost.  But again you have proven my point.  You attempt to clean the subject by saying removal of the fetus which is again as stated on the beginning of the thread.  Killing the baby.   As the term Pro-Choice is actually Pro-Kill.  There is no choice involved, The only thing a pro-choice person wants is the right to kill a baby. 
THis would be funny if it was different subject matter but luckily I know that you just say this stuff to get a rise out of us.  But thank you for the easy answer.  Feel free to read the beginning of the thread next time.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2008, 07:24:53 PM by Dark Knight »
Logged
He who goes to bed with itchy but, wakes up with stinky finger.
?

Dark Knight

  • 103
  • There are no athiests in Foxholes
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #84 on: November 26, 2008, 07:27:54 PM »
Quote from: T.T. Monsieur on November 26, 2008, 07:02:02 PM
Is someone able to link some competent pro-lifers over here? This isn't even a debate anymore.
Yah, looks like you've enlightened the debate with so much thoughtful information.  Your average post is less then 3 words long as a matter of fact this is the longest post you have over the past 20 you posted. 
Your like the little dog yipping next to the bull dog.  What are you a side kick or something.


 

« Last Edit: November 26, 2008, 07:35:09 PM by Dark Knight »
Logged
He who goes to bed with itchy but, wakes up with stinky finger.
?

T.T. Monsieur

Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #85 on: November 26, 2008, 07:57:03 PM »
If my post was so insignificant, why did you address it twice?

I took no sides, I would merely like to be subjected to an intelligent and compelling argument from the pro-life perspective. No offense, but you're doing a really shitty job.
Logged
?

Dark Knight

  • 103
  • There are no athiests in Foxholes
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #86 on: November 26, 2008, 07:59:29 PM »
Not offended at all.  The debate looks to be over as the pro-choicers are already talking in circles.  I had the debate won on the 2nd page.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2008, 08:02:23 PM by Dark Knight »
Logged
He who goes to bed with itchy but, wakes up with stinky finger.
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #87 on: November 26, 2008, 08:50:12 PM »
Don't triple post like that again, there's an edit button for a reason. Use it.
Logged
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #88 on: November 26, 2008, 09:24:28 PM »
Quote from: Dark Knight on November 26, 2008, 07:20:07 PM
You attempt to clean the subject by saying removal of the fetus which is again as stated on the beginning of the thread. 

Fine, you can call it "killing or removing the fetus/potential baby." There is a reason the word fetus was developed. You and your fallacies are not welcome.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 26, 2008, 07:20:07 PM
As the term Pro-Choice is actually Pro-Kill.  There is no choice involved, The only thing a pro-choice person wants is the right to kill a baby.

Um, no. Pro-choice is giving the right to the mother whether they want to have the baby or not (hint, that's a choice). For every mother that decides to have a child, pro-choice advocates do not get into a frenzy about them not aborting, thus we are not pro-kill.

We simply accept the right of the mother to choose what she wants with her body, and in her life. It's about making a life choice, and if you want to force unwanted pregnancies upon people, you're not very far from trying to force what things people should buy, or how they should spend their time.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 26, 2008, 07:20:07 PM
THis would be funny if it was different subject matter but luckily I know that you just say this stuff to get a rise out of us.

Don't really care if you get upset or not. I like speaking accurately, and you don't.
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
?

KingMan

  • 3025
Re: A question aimed at pro-lifers
« Reply #89 on: November 26, 2008, 10:53:33 PM »
Quote from: Wendy on November 26, 2008, 01:53:32 PM
Quote from: KingMan on November 26, 2008, 01:15:36 PM
Quote from: Wendy on November 26, 2008, 01:08:12 PM
Quote from: KingMan on November 26, 2008, 01:04:07 PM
Quote from: Wendy on November 26, 2008, 12:44:59 PM
Quote from: KingMan on November 26, 2008, 12:44:19 PM
Quote from: Hara Taiki on November 26, 2008, 12:42:37 PM
Quote from: KingMan on November 26, 2008, 12:42:13 PM
Quote from: Hara Taiki on November 26, 2008, 12:40:07 PM
It's the woman's choice no matter what. If she doesn't want a baby, no one can force her to have one.
But we can stop her from killing it.

No, we can't.
why not?

Because she should have the right to decide what to do with her own body.
She does. but that babies life is not hers.
She has no moral responsibility to the baby, no more than to a hobo in the street. In a perfect world, both would be saved, and wanted, but that is not the case.
So its okay to kill hobos? So why is it you are not allowed to kill a baby once its been born?

I don't condone killing hobos, but I still don't think that I have a moral obligation to personally do something about ones situation if I see one on the street. This is the same with a fetus whose mother does not want a child.
First off, no it isn't. Second off, You bastard.
Logged
I hate myself for coming here
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9   Go Up
« previous next »