Abortion: human right?

[The Black Forrest]

It's still not a guarantee. My mom will tell you that. She estimated she was involved with over 40000 births......

Wow! You must have a lot of brothers and sisters!

We are the ant people!

Labor and Delivery and her hospital handled many special cases....

[The Serbian Empire]

My mom will tell you that. She estimated she was involved with over 40000 births......

Wow! You must have a lot of brothers and sisters!

She's probably some kind of maternity ward nurse or OB-GYN.

[The Rich Port]

NO I did not. My statement was simply that by changing from all to some, you moved the goal post. I made no truth claim about it, only that you changed your statement. I had already proved your comment false previously. For it to be a fallacy fallacy, I would have had to make a truth claim. I did not say you are wrong because your statement included a fallacy. Learn the correct usage.

And all arguments end in a subjective debate on fallacies. Want to get back to the point?

No, it ends in a one-sided circle-jerk by people who commit fallacies.

Educate yourself.

[Neutraligon]

That you are wrong?

From your point of view on something that has devolved from the thread topic.

I provided you proof that not all pregnancies end with a live birth, so no, I you are factually wrong. Considering why you made the original claim I just refuted this is still on topic.

[Geilinor]

you said it will inevitably end in life. not so. there's always a chance that the fetus could die, however small.

I said birth.

Not if it is a miscarriage.

[Camelza]

What?

How can a fetus be non-human if it becomes a human is what I meant. I mean you can say it isn't a living thing, but its going to inevitably become one.

And all humans are inevitably going to end up being worm food, do we call humanity "worms' best snack"? No.

[Othelos]

Well that's wrong in this context. But I said birth in a later statement.

You said life originally, then changed it to birth.

[The Sotoan Union]

From your point of view on something that has devolved from the thread topic.

I provided you proof that not all pregnancies end with a live birth, so no, I you are factually wrong. Considering why you made the original claim I just refuted this is still on topic.

No you said I committed a fallacy that I didn't. That's what our debate became.

I said that it didn't happen on average. That's still true even if it can be as high as 25%, which it isn't always.

[The Black Forrest]

I said birth.

Not if it is a miscarriage.

And that is the scary thing. Let's say Abortion was outlawed. I could see the jebus crowd demanding miscarriages investigated.

[The Sotoan Union]

And all arguments end in a subjective debate on fallacies. Want to get back to the point?

No, it ends in a one-sided circle-jerk by people who commit fallacies.

Educate yourself.

For me to have done that I would have had to accuse someone's argument of being false because of a fallacy. I accused someone of doing that to me. Does that count?

[Geilinor]

The original claim by The Sotoan Union, 47 pages ago.

What?

How can a fetus be non-human if it becomes a human is what I meant. I mean you can say it isn't a living thing, but its going to inevitably become one.

[Neutraligon]

I provided you proof that not all pregnancies end with a live birth, so no, I you are factually wrong. Considering why you made the original claim I just refuted this is still on topic.

No you said I committed a fallacy that I didn't. That's what our debate became.

I said that it didn't happen on average. That's still true even if it can be as high as 25%, which it isn't always.

You clearly stated that every pregnancy inevitably becomes a life here

What?

How can a fetus be non-human if it becomes a human is what I meant. I mean you can say it isn't a living thing, but its going to inevitably become one.

I showed you are wrong by quoting the number of miscarriages.
You then said that you meant most of the time it becomes a life, which is moving the goal post since that is clearly not what you originally said.

You than said I did a fallacy myself, the fallacy fallacy. However as the fallacy fallacy requires that I make a truth claim about your statement because you made a fallacy, I did not. I did not say you are wrong because you committed a fallacy, I said you are wrong here, and then you committed a fallacy. There is a big difference. You actually repeated your claim later because you actually stated that we can assume that a pregnancy will lead to a live birth, which we clearly cannot.

As to the purpose of your statement, no one is claiming that a fetus is not of the species homo sapien sapiens,, what they are contesting is if it is a person.

[The Sotoan Union]

No you said I committed a fallacy that I didn't. That's what our debate became.

I said that it didn't happen on average. That's still true even if it can be as high as 25%, which it isn't always.

You clearly stated that every pregnancy inevitably becomes a life here

How can a fetus be non-human if it becomes a human is what I meant. I mean you can say it isn't a living thing, but its going to inevitably become one.

I showed you are wrong by quoting the number of miscarriages.
You then said that you meant most of the time it becomes a life, which is moving the goal post since that is clearly not what you originally said.

That quote is out of context, but is entirely wrong in this context. i admit it.

But you accused me of moving the goalpost when I said that most pregnancies end in live births. I have since made the statement that they ended in births. To say that I committed the fallacy because the argument changed would make sense if our debate was about all births ending in live births. But it was always about the average birth. To say you are responding to the original comment, made yesterday, would be to selectively ignore my statements made today. You responded to those. That's what this debate was about. I am not arguing the statement made yesterday with you, and I never was.

[Sasten]

I just want to put it out there that whatever a fetus/baby/child/whatever may become is entirely irrelevant to whether or not it should be terminated. It is impossible to tell in advance what a child may become, and at any rate good and bad are entirely subjective. For all we know Hitler's mom may have thought of him as a hero. To suggest that the decision should be made purely on such fantastical speculation absolutely reeks of bovine feces from all sides of the fence.

[The 502nd SS]

I just want to put it out there that whatever a fetus/baby/child/whatever may become is entirely irrelevant to whether or not it should be terminated. It is impossible to tell in advance what a child may become, and at any rate good and bad are entirely subjective. For all we know Hitler's mom may have thought of him as a hero. To suggest that the decision should be made purely on such fantastical speculation absolutely reeks of bovine feces from all sides of the fence.

She died when he was young

[Neutraligon]

You clearly stated that every pregnancy inevitably becomes a life here


I showed you are wrong by quoting the number of miscarriages.
You then said that you meant most of the time it becomes a life, which is moving the goal post since that is clearly not what you originally said.

That quote is out of context, but is entirely wrong in this context. i admit it.

But you accused me of moving the goalpost when I said that most pregnancies end in live births. I have since made the statement that they ended in births. To say that I committed the fallacy because the argument changed would make sense if our debate was about all births ending in live births. But it was always about the average birth. To say you are responding to the original comment, made yesterday, would be to selectively ignore my statements made today. You responded to those. That's what this debate was about. I am not arguing the statement made yesterday with you, and I never was.

Then why did you say this today

having a live birth with the baby turning out healthy isn't a guarantee from getting pregnant. That was the point we were trying to make.

But it's pretty likely. To the point where you can assume a pregnancy will end in a live birth. Technically they always end in a birth.

[The Serbian Empire]

Not if it is a miscarriage.

And that is the scary thing. Let's say Abortion was outlawed. I could see the jebus crowd demanding miscarriages investigated.

You know it. Fundies aren't exactly bright.

[Geilinor]

Not if it is a miscarriage.

And that is the scary thing. Let's say Abortion was outlawed. I could see the jebus crowd demanding miscarriages investigated.

Investigating miscarriages is the only way to enforce an abortion ban.

[Arcturus Novus]

Abortion is not a human right. Next question.

But why?

[Sasten]

I just want to put it out there that whatever a fetus/baby/child/whatever may become is entirely irrelevant to whether or not it should be terminated. It is impossible to tell in advance what a child may become, and at any rate good and bad are entirely subjective. For all we know Hitler's mom may have thought of him as a hero. To suggest that the decision should be made purely on such fantastical speculation absolutely reeks of bovine feces from all sides of the fence.

She died when he was young

Okay fine, but my main point still stands.

[The Rich Port]

I just want to put it out there that whatever a fetus/baby/child/whatever may become is entirely irrelevant to whether or not it should be terminated. It is impossible to tell in advance what a child may become, and at any rate good and bad are entirely subjective. For all we know Hitler's mom may have thought of him as a hero. To suggest that the decision should be made purely on such fantastical speculation absolutely reeks of bovine feces from all sides of the fence.

Hey, the pro-lifers started it. We were just pointing out how stupid what he said was.

Abortion is not a human right. Next question.

But why?

I don't think he understand what discussions are, probably because he's never had one in his life that didn't challenge his own stupid beliefs.

[The Sotoan Union]

That quote is out of context, but is entirely wrong in this context. i admit it.

But you accused me of moving the goalpost when I said that most pregnancies end in live births. I have since made the statement that they ended in births. To say that I committed the fallacy because the argument changed would make sense if our debate was about all births ending in live births. But it was always about the average birth. To say you are responding to the original comment, made yesterday, would be to selectively ignore my statements made today. You responded to those. That's what this debate was about. I am not arguing the statement made yesterday with you, and I never was.

Then why did you say this today

But it's pretty likely. To the point where you can assume a pregnancy will end in a live birth. Technically they always end in a birth.

Because most pregnancies do end in live births. It's uncommon for it not to. Not impossible.

[Neutraligon]

Then why did you say this today

Because most pregnancies do end in live births. It's uncommon for it not to. Not impossible.

1/4 is not a good assumption to make on live births, and since you said that it's different for industrialized nations, those were the numbers for America. Also, as I said earlier, the argument is not on the species of the fetus, but rather on the personhood. Although, I think the personhood is mostly irrelevant.

[Arcturus Novus]

I just want to put it out there that whatever a fetus/baby/child/whatever may become is entirely irrelevant to whether or not it should be terminated. It is impossible to tell in advance what a child may become, and at any rate good and bad are entirely subjective. For all we know Hitler's mom may have thought of him as a hero. To suggest that the decision should be made purely on such fantastical speculation absolutely reeks of bovine feces from all sides of the fence.

Hey, the pro-lifers started it. We were just pointing out how stupid what he said was.

But why?

I don't think he understand what discussions are, probably because he's never had one in his life that didn't challenge his own stupid beliefs.

It appears so, but it'd be interesting to see their reasoning.

[Mavorpen]

Because most pregnancies do end in live births. It's uncommon for it not to. Not impossible.

1/4 is not a good assumption to make on live births, and since you said that it's different for industrialized nations, those were the numbers for America. Also, as I said earlier, the argument is not on the species of the fetus, but rather on the personhood. Although, I think the personhood is mostly irrelevant.

Honestly their argument, whether they realize it or not, isn't that abortion should be illegal because they're persons, it's that it should be illegal because they're above persons. They want to give them power and rights no born person has.