[Pants-of-dog]

I'm not sure how you arrived that conclusion.

You want fetuses to be allowed to use another person's body as a life support system even if that other person does not consent. No one else has the right to use another person's body without their consent. thus, you want fetuses to have more rights than anyone else.

It isn't my morality, though. It's Judaeo-Christian morality. This isn't 'mine' so much as it belongs to history and society. I'm not the one here who believes in the tautologies of cultural atomization.

Abortion will always be considered immoral by Christian social teaching and this will continue to propel the pro-life movement. It's a form of conscientious objection.

I am not Christian. Do not make me live by the beliefs of Christians.

Another ad hominem.

It's not an ad hominem just because you feel offended.

I am pointing out that you are using moral arguments that are specific to a group within our larger society (i.e. you are appealing to a specifically intrusive Christian morality) rather than using logic and evidence that would be applicable to all members of society.

[Donna]

You want fetuses to be allowed to use another person's body as a life support system even if that other person does not consent. No one else has the right to use another person's body without their consent. thus, you want fetuses to have more rights than anyone else.

Women consent to carry an unborn child when they make the decision to copulate.

I am not Christian. Do not make me live by the beliefs of Christians.

That's fine, so long as the irreligious aren't frightening the horses.

It's not an ad hominem just because you feel offended.

I'm not offended, it's just fallacious argumentation, that is all.

I am pointing out that you are using moral arguments that are specific to a group within our larger society (i.e. you are appealing to a specifically intrusive Christian morality) rather than using logic and evidence that would be applicable to all members of society.

Christians aren't the only ones who oppose abortion.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

You want fetuses to be allowed to use another person's body as a life support system even if that other person does not consent. No one else has the right to use another person's body without their consent. thus, you want fetuses to have more rights than anyone else.

If it is your child then yes you have an obligation to use your body to keep them alive. This isn't about caring for a stranger it's about the duty a mother has to protect her child.

[Pants-of-dog]

Women consent to carry an unborn child when they make the decision to copulate.

No.

Women consent to copulate when they make the decision to copulate.

That's fine, so long as the irreligious aren't frightening the horses.

Whatever. As long as my daughters do not have their access to abortion limited just because you believe in a specific version of the Judeo-Christian mythology.

I'm not offended, it's just fallacious argumentation, that is all.

Feel free to show how it is fallacious.

Christians aren't the only ones who oppose abortion.

I never said they were. I am pointing out that you are using moral arguments that are specific to a group within our larger society (i.e. you are appealing to a specifically intrusive Christian morality) rather than using logic and evidence that would be applicable to all members of society.

------------------

If it is your child then yes you have an obligation to use your body to keep them alive. This isn't about caring for a stranger it's about the duty a mother has to protect her child.

Why are you arguing that children and fetuses should get more rights than adults?

Also, are you arguing that if a child gets sick, the state can force the parent to donate blood and tissue in order to save the child?

[Donna]

Women consent to copulate when they make the decision to copulate.

They are cognizant that copulation could result in pregnancy, therefore when they engage in copulation, they are consenting to its biological and social consequences.

Feel free to show how it is fallacious.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

Have a nice day.

I never said they were. I am pointing out that you are using moral arguments that are specific to a group within our larger society (i.e. you are appealing to a specifically intrusive Christian morality) rather than using logic and evidence that would be applicable to all members of society.

Are Christians the only group who oppose abortion, yes or no?

[Pants-of-dog]

They are cognizant that copulation could result in pregnancy, therefore when they engage in copulation, they are consenting to its biological and social consequences.

By this notion, kids who speed while driving their cars should not receive medical attention.

Speeding can result in traffic accidents, therefore when they engage in speeding, they are consenting to its biological and social consequences.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

Have a nice day.

Please note that a link to a website is not an explanation of how an argument is fallacious.

Are Christians the only group who oppose abortion, yes or no?

No, they are not.

However, that does not contradict my claim that you are using moral arguments that are specific to a group within our larger society (i.e. you are appealing to a specifically intrusive Christian morality) rather than using logic and evidence that would be applicable to all members of society.

[Donna]

By this notion, kids who speed while driving their cars should not receive medical attention.

Speeding can result in traffic accidents, therefore when they engage in speeding, they are consenting to its biological and social consequences.

I'm not sure how that is relevant to anything.

Please note that a link to a website is not an explanation of how an argument is fallacious.

Please note that reviewing the contents of the website contains therein an explanation of how an argument is fallacious.

No, they are not.

Thank you. Have a nice day.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm not sure how that is relevant to anything.

I am showing that if we use your logic (i.e. consenting to one act means that you consent to suffering any and all possible consequences of that act) then speeding drivers cannot receive medical attention for their decisions.

Please note that reviewing the contents of the website contains therein an explanation of how an argument is fallacious.

Then that would be the first step for you. Let me know when you have finished reading it.

Thank you. Have a nice day.

You too.

By the way, I assume you agree that you are using moral arguments that are specific to a group within our larger society (i.e. you are appealing to a specifically intrusive Christian morality) rather than using logic and evidence that would be applicable to all members of society.

[Donna]

I am showing that if we use your logic (i.e. consenting to one act means that you consent to suffering any and all possible consequences of that act) then speeding drivers cannot receive medical attention for their decisions.

Arbitrary abortion procedure and medical relief aren't the same thing.

Then that would be the first step for you. Let me know when you have finished reading it.

Thank you, I'll presume that you read the contents of the link and the above text is an acknowledgement of your error.

By the way, I assume you agree that you are using moral arguments that are specific to a group within our larger society (i.e. you are appealing to a specifically intrusive Christian morality) rather than using logic and evidence that would be applicable to all members of society.

I'll assume you agree that the premise of this assumption is faulty because you have agreed that I am not appealing to "a specifically intrusive Christian morality".

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Why are you arguing that children and fetuses should get more rights than adults?

But the rights of children adults and foetuses already differ and is it not already the law that a parent must give proper care to their child?

Also, are you arguing that if a child gets sick, the state can force the parent to donate blood and tissue in order to save the child?

It's not always a yes or no answer but I would expect there to be some sort of ramifications for a parent who is unwilling to assist their dying child.

[Pants-of-dog]

Arbitrary abortion procedure and medical relief aren't the same thing.

Both are medical procedures.

Thank you, I'll presume that you read the contents of the link and the above text is an acknowledgement of your error.

I have no idea why you would think that I have acknowledged any error. The only thing I am acknowledging is that you have only begun to research the idea of fallacious arguments. Thus you may, in the future, show how I have made a fallacious argument, if I actually have made one, which I doubt.

I'll assume you agree that the premise of this assumption is faulty because you have agreed that I am not appealing to "a specifically intrusive Christian morality".

I agreed that others (such as jessupjonesjnr87) argue against abortion on non-Xian grounds.

You, however, have not done so in this thread.

--------------------------

But the rights of children adults and foetuses already differ

Not where I live, nor should they in any civilised nation.

and is it not already the law that a parent must give proper care to their child?

Please show me the law that says that the state has the right to force parents to donate blood and tissue to their sick children.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

So where you live are children allowed to drive cars and smoke cigars?

[Pants-of-dog]

So where you live are children allowed to drive cars and smoke cigars?

What does this have to do with abortion?

[jessupjonesjnr87]

I'm trying to show you that we don't all have universal rights, a concept which seems alien to you yet already exists.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm trying to show you that we don't all have universal rights, a concept which seems alien to you yet already exists.

What does this have to do with abortion?

[Quantum]

Why should they, though? Women cannot legally reject their children unless the father of the children agrees.

I don't think anyone, man or woman, should be forced to pay for child support, especially when men being tethered as a result of an unplanned pregnancy. Anyone should be free to walk out on their children or turn them over to the state.

[Truth To Power]

Why should they, though? Women cannot legally reject their children unless the father of the children agrees.

I don't think anyone, man or woman, should be forced to pay for child support, especially when men being tethered as a result of an unplanned pregnancy. Anyone should be free to walk out on their children or turn them over to the state.

People -- adults -- often have to be responsible for unplanned consequences of their actions. If the sex was voluntary and consensual, the pregnancy is a consequence for which both parties bear responsibility -- but over which only the woman has veto power, for obvious reasons.

[spodi]

Here's my take on sucking a fetus out of a womb with a vaccumn or going old school with the coat hanger. Please excuse my controversial description but its a controversial subject. Pro life pro choice neither. I'm private choice. No one is obviously pro abortion but with a person's private life it should stay a private manner. Its obviously traumatizing and nobodys business but the patient's. I find it funny when conservatives who want government out of their lives want to impose their anti abortion ideas on peoples private lives. Fucking-idiots.

[snapdragon]

Here's my take on sucking a fetus out of a womb with a vaccumn or going old school with the coat hanger. Please excuse my controversial description but its a controversial subject.

Which is a great pity, because it doesn't need to be. Obviously, sucking out an unwanted embryo , provided it's done by an expert, is far superior to being hacked about by a coat hanger by an amateur, but apart from that the end result is the same. An unwanted pregnancy is brought to an end.

Pro life pro choice neither. I'm private choice. No one is obviously pro abortion but with a person's private life it should stay a private manner. Its obviously traumatizing and nobodys business but the patient's. I find it funny when conservatives who want government out of their lives want to impose their anti abortion ideas on peoples private lives. Fucking-idiots.

Yeah The thing is, nobody is right and nobody is wrong when it comes to their personal feelings. I know I would abort an unwanted pregnancy. The reasons I may choose abortion may seem paltry to other people, but they would be important enough for me - and so it follows.

Mind your own business. Try walking a mile in someone else's shoes.

[Donna]

Both are medical procedures.

Debatable. Medical practitioners are allowed to approach abortion procedures conscientiously (i.e., refuse to do them), which isn't the same thing as treating a traumatic injury.

Which is a great pity, because it doesn't need to be. Obviously, sucking out an unwanted embryo , provided it's done by an expert, is far superior to being hacked about by a coat hanger by an amateur, but apart from that the end result is the same. An unwanted pregnancy is brought to an end.

That's kind of an extreme interpretation of the abortion issue. What the pro-life movement is trying to do is lobby for restrictions to abortion, rather than outright ban it.