"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"

[SammyT]

:doh: What a logic fail :hammer:

If you were able to go into the past and prevent either World War II ~or~ a murder that happened in Chicago last week, but could only choose one, which one would it be?

No need to entertain a lie:
~you don't believe the murder in Chicago is murder, so stop preaching it~

Do you understand how illogical your question is?
:help:

You slapped his question down quite gracefully, brother!

 

[mighty_duck]

:doh: What a logic fail :hammer:

If you were able to go into the past and prevent either World War II ~or~ a murder that happened in Chicago last week, but could only choose one, which one would it be?

No need to entertain a lie:
~you don't believe the murder in Chicago is murder, so stop preaching it~

Do you understand how illogical your question is?
:help:

Good point here.

But let's try it from a different angle. Why would we prevent WWII rather than the single Chicago murder? Because we would prefer to save millions of human lives rather than one.

But in the case of the burning fertility clinic, where we can either save a freezer full of thousands of embryos or a single crying child, most people would save the child. Why is that?

 

[alwight]

Hang on a minute, without WWII I for one wouldn't be here, I have a lot to thank Hitler for.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Did this thread actually take 900 posts to invoke Godwin's Law?

:doh:

 

[quip]

Good point here.

But let's try it from a different angle. Why would we prevent WWII rather than the single Chicago murder? Because we would prefer to save millions of human lives rather than one.

But in the case of the burning fertility clinic, where we can either save a freezer full of thousands of embryos or a single crying child, most people would save the child. Why is that?

This has been pointed out to Oz before....he has no answer.

 

[quip]

:doh: What a logic fail :hammer:

If you were able to go into the past and prevent either World War II ~or~ a murder that happened in Chicago last week.....(rest of pointless exercise)

Interesting, you just analogously equated millions of abortion deaths to a single Chicago murder. :think:

Maybe there's hope for you yet!

 

[mighty_duck]

Did this thread actually take 900 posts to invoke Godwin's Law?

:doh:

An abortion thread on TOL rarely cracks 50 posts before Godwin makes a showing.

This thread actually made it to 157 posts, which is a credit to WoO for maintaining some semblance of civility here. :cheers:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3355043&highlight=Hitler#post3355043

 

[WizardofOz]

false dilemma x 3

false dilemma x 3

It's not illogical at all. The whole point of it is to show that you don't really value a fetus as much as a person already born and experiencing life, you just *think* you do.

If you had to choose between a toddler and a three month old fetus, you would choose the toddler.
And it's just that simple.

Which has NOTHING to do with abortion or any point you're straining to make.

If an 80-year-old man and a toddler are trapped in a burning building and you can save one while the other is sure to die, who would you save?

What in the world does this hypothetical have to do with abortion?

Nothing.

When speaking of abortion, we don't have to choose between one life or the other. We have to choose between the whims and convenience of one versus the life of the other.

In other words, your entire "argument" is a false dilemma.

Good point here.

But let's try it from a different angle. Why would we prevent WWII rather than the single Chicago murder? Because we would prefer to save millions of human lives rather than one.

But in the case of the burning fertility clinic, where we can either save a freezer full of thousands of embryos or a single crying child, most people would save the child. Why is that?

See above. Would you save the old man or the baby in the burning building? Now, does you answer have anything to do with the legality of killing either? :nono:

This has been pointed out to Oz before....he has no answer.

Lie. You tried this failed hypthetical in the past and were even slapped down by your fellow pro-choicers for its absurdity.

It was answered/responded to by me and others.

Who do you save, quip, the old man or the baby in the burning building?

All 3 of you are perpetuating the same false dilemma that has nothing to do with abortion.

 

[quip]

Lie. You tried this failed hypthetical in the past and were even slapped down by your fellow pro-choicers for its absurdity.

It was answered/responded to by me and others.

Who do you save, quip, the old man or the baby in the burning building?

All 3 of you are perpetuating the same false dilemma that has nothing to do with abortion.

You attempted this tired retort last time ....if I remember correctly. The point is not whom to save but rather the action of 'whom to save' represents the intuitive, relative value placed upon each one. And, once again without hesitation, the overwhelming response would be to save the one fully developed human over (a hundred-fold) abstract idealized notions of human-beings....i.e. an embryo.

Thus, your retort analogy begs the very 'value' question you're purporting to dismiss. Your analogy must entail an intuitive valuation of two fully developed human beings against one another while necessitating an entirely new (and irrelevant) set of circumstances for the reader to use in their decision to save only one of them. It's simply a useless deflection that backfires on you.

 

[WizardofOz]

You attempted this tired retort last time

versus

This has been pointed out to Oz before....he has no answer.

Whoops :hammer:

The point is not whom to save but rather the action of 'whom to save' represents the intuitive, relative value placed upon each one. And, once again without hesitation, the overwhelming response would be to save the one fully developed human over (a hundred-fold) abstract idealized notions of human-beings....i.e. an embryo.

And if 100 out of 100 choose to save the child rather than the old man does that mean that we can kill old people for the sake of convenience?

Who people choose to fail in this absolute fail of a hypothetical says nothing about the legality of killing another human.

I notice that you conveniently didn't answer. Who would you save, the old man or the child?

Thus, your retort analogy begs the very 'value' question you're purporting to dismiss. Your analogy must entail an intuitive valuation of two fully developed human beings against one another while necessitating an entirely new (and irrelevant) set of circumstances for the reader to use in their decision to save only one of them. It's simply a useless deflection that backfires on you.

Rather, it shows how irrelevant the answer is. Who an individual chooses to save does nothing to determine the value of the one left to die. You'd probably save your own child rather than 100 strangers. Does that mean that the 100 strangers have no value and be indiscriminately killed?

The absurd hypothetical says nothing about abortion as abortion is not a choice between who to save and who to let die.

 

[WizardofOz]

Since quip is absolutely full of it and claims that I had no answer to his absurd burning building hypothetical, here and here is where it was addressed as well as several other posts in that thread.

I will quote the question that got him squirming:

You have two women in a burning building and both of equal physical ability.
One just found out she was pregnant
You only have time to save one.

Which would you save and why?

 

[quip]

versus



Whoops :hammer:

..and you still haven't address the relevant aspects of the dilemma. So, perhaps you need to stick your silly 'whoop' back into your bag 'o tricks.

And if 100 out of 100 choose to save the child rather than the old man does that mean that we can kill old people for the sake of convenience?

Who people choose to fail in this absolute fail of a hypothetical says nothing about the legality of killing another human.

I notice that you conveniently didn't answer. Who would you save, the old man or the child?

Whom to save would entail a completely different set of intuitions/criteria than the prior scenario. Both subjects presented are fully sentient, currently suffering human beings so the question of inherent value is moot. Thus, - all else being equal - I'd more than likely - intuitively - favor the young child as they'd probably be easier (agility-wise, size-wize) to escort out of the building...plus their relative ages would also be a factor...as the young child's just starting out in life. :idunno:

This contrivance of yours here has nothing to do with your idealistic presumption that a zygote qua human-being is of equal moral value to that of a fully developed person/human-being. This is a mere smoke screen....a dodge.

Rather, it shows how irrelevant the answer is. Who an individual chooses to save does nothing to determine the value of the one left to die. You'd probably save your own child rather than 100 strangers. Does that mean that the 100 strangers have no value and be indiscriminately killed?

The absurd hypothetical says nothing about abortion as abortion is not a choice between who to save and who to let die.

Well then, are you backing off your assertion that a zygote holds the moral equivelent value of say, a fully developed, independently functioning human being? If not, then it's entirely relevant to your objection to abortion...so, deal with its implication instead of cowardly running from it.

 

[quip]

Since quip is absolutely full of it and claims that I had no answer to his absurd burning building hypothetical, here and here is where it was addressed as well as several other posts in that thread.

I will quote the question that got him squirming:

The pregnant one, more than likely. Human nature as it is, we hold a natural propensity for mothers-to-be and motherhood in general. Are you assuming (more than likely, insinuating) that pro-choice arguments hold absolute zero value for the unborn? That's an emotional short-sighted assumption Oz. Pro-choice is just that....it's about choice not simply demanding the death of an embryo.


Plus, the mother probably holds plenty of value to it ...as being her baby. That's good enough for me.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Good point here.

But let's try it from a different angle. Why would we prevent WWII rather than the single Chicago murder? Because we would prefer to save millions of human lives rather than one.

But in the case of the burning fertility clinic, where we can either save a freezer full of thousands of embryos or a single crying child, most people would save the child. Why is that?

Because I can't pick up a freezer full of thousands of embryos and run out of the building with it. On the other hand, if I can just push it out the door, why can't I just put the kid on top of the freezer and roll him out with it? And what am I doing in a fertility clinic, anyway?

 

[quip]

Because I can't pick up a freezer full of thousands of embryos and run out of the building with it. On the other hand, if I can just push it out the door, why can't I just put the kid on top of the freezer and roll him out with it? And what am I doing in a fertility clinic, anyway?

Of course, any sane person would if they could..yet, saving people is not the point.

 

[WizardofOz]

..and you still haven't address the relevant aspects of the dilemma. So, perhaps you need to stick your silly 'whoop' back into your bag 'o tricks.

Sure I have. Read back through this thread. I addressed it ad naseum despite the hypothetical being absurd and irrelevant to the abortion debate from the start..

This contrivance of yours here has nothing to do with your idealistic presumption that a zygote qua human-being is of equal moral value to that of a fully developed person/human-being. This is a mere smoke screen....a dodge.

And yet another strawman on your behalf.

Well then, are you backing off your assertion that a zygote holds the moral equivelent value of say, a fully developed, independently functioning human being? If not, then it's entirely relevant to your objection to abortion...so, deal with its implication instead of cowardly running from it.

And the strawman is repeated.

Compelling stuff. lain:

The pregnant one, more than likely. Human nature as it is, we hold a natural propensity for mothers-to-be and motherhood in general. Are you assuming (more than likely, insinuating) that pro-choice arguments hold absolute zero value for the unborn?

If you're perfectly OK with them being killed indiscriminately then yes, evidence shows you placing no value on them whatsoever.

Plus, the mother probably holds plenty of value to it ...as being her baby. That's good enough for me.

And if she does not then what value do you hold to it?

 

[quip]

And yet another strawman on your behalf.



And the strawman is repeated.

I'm strawmaning my own argument. :chuckle:

Compelling stuff. lain:

Indeed! you've said nothing here. Just more ducking and hiding.

If you're perfectly OK with them being killed indiscriminately then yes, evidence shows you placing no value on them whatsoever.

Who said anything about placing "no value on them whatsoever". You're grasping....

And if she does not then what value do you hold to it?

Same value I initially had.....I value the liberty she employs in choosing....either way.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Same value I initially had.....

Which is?

I value the liberty she employs in choosing....either way.

So basically, you don't care about the baby's life one way or the other -- the only thing that matters to you is the mother's choice?

 

[WizardofOz]

I'm strawmaning my own argument. :chuckle:

You cannot follow a conversation or recall what you wrote literally minutes after writing it. Re-read and see if you can identify your strawman.

I'll help you out, one comes right after "your idealistic presumption". If you wrote "your" it probably isn't your own argument, is it?

The next comes after "backing off your assertion" where what you feel is my assertion is nothing but yet another strawman you've crafted.

Who said anything about placing "no value on them whatsoever". You're grasping....

Um, I did. Just a few minutes ago. If you're perfectly OK with them being killed indiscriminately then yes, evidence shows you placing no value on them whatsoever.

 

[quip]

Which is?



So basically, you don't care about the baby's life one way or the other -- the only thing that matters to you is the mother's choice?

The liberty involved in maintaining the choice...yes.

An anonymous pregnant woman...whom I'll never know, influence or otherwise interact with. Would you impose otherwise?