Real Rape Victims Don't Get Pregnant

[Nulono]

The mother has an obligation to not take the life of an innocent human being.

SCOTUS says otherwise.

BAZINGA!

Wow, you have stumped me, because I was obviously arguing that abortion is currently illegal.

Oh, wait, except I wasn't. I'm arguing that abortion should be illegal.

[R Ev0lution]

Not sure if somebody's already mentioned this, but the really terrifying thing is that Akin is a member of the House Committee on Science.

[Nulono]

Not sure if somebody's already mentioned this, but the really terrifying this is that Akin is a member of the House Committee on Science.

True that.

[Farnhamia]

Not sure if somebody's already mentioned this, but the really terrifying this is that Akin is a member of the House Committee on Science.

Someone did. That's okay, Michele Bachmann is on the House Intelligence Committee.

[R Ev0lution]

Not sure if somebody's already mentioned this, but the really terrifying this is that Akin is a member of the House Committee on Science.

Someone did. That's okay, Michelle Bachmann is on the House Intelligence Committee.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Abortion is central to the topic. The entire line about rape victims was being directed at abortion.

Abortion is certainly germane to the topic, but not all topics relating to abortion are necessarily central to the topic. A detailed digression on whether a foetus is or isn't a parasite certainly isn't necessarily core to the topic.

So I'd be grateful if we could end what's evolving into a threadjack, or at least find a way of relating it directly to Akin's remarks if we have to pursue this line of discussion.

Thank you.

I have to disagree Arch...this is pertinent to the topic as when you boil Akins statement down to its basics it is all about removing choice from women. That choice, or the legality thereof, is predicated on when a foetus can be considered to be alive. The debate necessitates an understanding of this. So when someone says life begins at x time there is a requirement to investigate or debate that point. I do not consider this to be a threadjack but rather a part of the debate.

[Samuraikoku]

Oh, wait, except I wasn't. I'm arguing that abortion should be illegal.

You stated:

The mother has an obligation to not take the life of an innocent human being.

You didn't use "should have". You used present simple, as in "she actually has". Via Roe vs. Wade, she hasn't.

Again, BAZINGA.

[R Ev0lution]

Oh, wait, except I wasn't. I'm arguing that abortion should be illegal.

You stated:

The mother has an obligation to not take the life of an innocent human being.

You didn't use "should have". You used present simple, as in "she actually has". Via Roe vs. Wade, she hasn't.

Again, BAZINGA.

To be fair, one could argue that there's a difference between a legal obligation and an ethical obligation, and that Nulono was arguing that there was an ethical obligation rather than a legal one.

[DaWoad]

because otherwise doctors have a duty to put every dead person on a heart/lung machine and wait until they decay and that would cripple the medical system.

How about we also kill all sick people, to reduce the burden on our medical system? Your argument is based not on morality, but on what is best for the medical system.

or, you know, based on treating the sick. My argument is "a definition of life that includes people that are braindead is incompatible with modern healthcare". I'm not arguing that for the sake of modern healthcare, I'm arguing it for the sake of the sick people that would die while doctors attempted to save dead people because " republicans say they're still alive!"

[Samuraikoku]

To be fair, one could argue that there's a difference between a legal obligation and an ethical obligation, and that Nulono was arguing that there was an ethical obligation rather than a legal one.

Except he brought up the "pro-life" laws in the first place.

[Nulono]

Oh, wait, except I wasn't. I'm arguing that abortion should be illegal.

You stated:

The mother has an obligation to not take the life of an innocent human being.

You didn't use "should have". You used present simple, as in "she actually has". Via Roe vs. Wade, she hasn't.

Again, BAZINGA.

I did not state that she has a legal obligation.

How about we also kill all sick people, to reduce the burden on our medical system? Your argument is based not on morality, but on what is best for the medical system.

or, you know, based on treating the sick. My argument is "a definition of life that includes people that are braindead is incompatible with modern healthcare". I'm not arguing that for the sake of modern healthcare, I'm arguing it for the sake of the sick people that would die while doctors attempted to save dead people because " republicans say they're still alive!"

That is an argumentum ad consequentiam, and does not refute my point.

[Nulono]

To be fair, one could argue that there's a difference between a legal obligation and an ethical obligation, and that Nulono was arguing that there was an ethical obligation rather than a legal one.

Except he brought up the "pro-life" laws in the first place.

I was responding to a specific post, not claiming abortion was illegal.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

because otherwise doctors have a duty to put every dead person on a heart/lung machine and wait until they decay and that would cripple the medical system.

How about we also kill all sick people, to reduce the burden on our medical system? Your argument is based not on morality, but on what is best for the medical system.

That is just silly given that "medical systems" are set up to treat those who are ill.

[Samuraikoku]

I did not state that she has a legal obligation.

Except you did bring the law up.

Therefore, I attacked precisely your argument. That you want to mask it as a strawman is your own business, not mine.

[Samuraikoku]

I was responding to a specific post, not claiming abortion was illegal.

That's called "goalpost shifting". If all you're going to do is make fallacy after fallacy, I have no reason to further argue.

[Nulono]

I did not state that she has a legal obligation.

Except you did bring the law up.

Therefore, I attacked precisely your argument. That you want to mask it as a strawman is your own business, not mine.

As I just said, I never claimed that abortion was illegal, just that someone who never plans to kill anyone shouldn't be afraid of pro-life laws.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

yes you are...you are saying that a collection of cells making up an embryo is not the same as a collection of cells making up a tumour. One what basis of science or logic one can but wonder.

You honestly don't get the difference?

I was working off your definition...

[Nulono]

You honestly don't get the difference?

I was working off your definition...

No, you were working off a straw man of my definition. I never claimed that any collection of human cells is a person.

[Mail Jeevas]

Not sure if somebody's already mentioned this, but the really terrifying thing is that Akin is a member of the House Committee on Science.

I've brought it up once. And other people have brought it up too.

And for the record, Wilkes is an idiot. Someone posted this earlier.

And @Nulono : A prospective mother may have an "ethical obligation" to not kill her unborn child/fetus/parasite/what have you, but society should not force her to think like them. If she wants to be seen as "morally wrong" to some people, so she doesn't have to look at the face that raped her, then she shouldn't have to. A woman should have the right to chose what happens in her body. And society owes it to a child for them to be brought up in loving homes. Forcing a woman through an unwanted pregnancy does not always do right by the child.

[Neo Art]

I was responding to a specific post, not claiming abortion was illegal.

My god. I'd call you a one trick pony but even the pony occassionally wants to try something new.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

yes you are...you are saying that a collection of cells making up an embryo is not the same as a collection of cells making up a tumour. One what basis of science or logic one can but wonder.

You know, that might make an interesting argument....

"No you can't get chemotherapy, it might kill your tumor!"

"Um... that's kind of the point."

In essence yes. This is how deeply the anti-intellectualism runs these days...

[Farnhamia]

I was responding to a specific post, not claiming abortion was illegal.

My god. I'd call you a one trick pony but even the pony occassionally wants to try something new.

Now you've done it, mentioned ponies.

[Nulono]

Not sure if somebody's already mentioned this, but the really terrifying thing is that Akin is a member of the House Committee on Science.

I've brought it up once. And other people have brought it up too.

And for the record, Wilkes is an idiot. Someone posted this earlier.

And @Nulono : A prospective mother may have an "ethical obligation" to not kill her unborn child/fetus/parasite/what have you, but society should not force her to think like them. If she wants to be seen as "morally wrong" to some people, so she doesn't have to look at the face that raped her, then she shouldn't have to. A woman should have the right to chose what happens in her body. And society owes it to a child for them to be brought up in loving homes. Forcing a woman through an unwanted pregnancy does not always do right by the child.

So it's okay to kill someone so that they won't be brought up in an unloving home? It's okay to kill someone because you don't like their face?

[DaWoad]

or, you know, based on treating the sick. My argument is "a definition of life that includes people that are braindead is incompatible with modern healthcare". I'm not arguing that for the sake of modern healthcare, I'm arguing it for the sake of the sick people that would die while doctors attempted to save dead people because " republicans say they're still alive!"

That is an argumentum ad consequentiam, and does not refute my point.

no, it's an integral part of the debate. you're claiming fetuses are persons, I'm demanding a definition that is universal and that allows both fetuses to be people and dead people (also sperm/ovum)not to be people. Can you provide one? If not, why do fetuses deserve special treatment? If so, why haven't you provided it?
If you're arguing that something should be legal (or illegal) the consequences of making it so need to be examined, this is not a fallacy.

[Nulono]

That is an argumentum ad consequentiam, and does not refute my point.

no, it's an integral part of the debate. you're claiming fetuses are persons, I'm demanding a definition that is universal and that allows both fetuses to be people and dead people (also sperm/ovum)not to be people. Can you provide one? If not, why do fetuses deserve special treatment? If so, why haven't you provided it?
If you're arguing that something should be legal (or illegal) the consequences of making it so need to be examined, this is not a fallacy.

A person is any organism of the human species.

My god. I'd call you a one trick pony but even the pony occassionally wants to try something new.

Now you've done it, mentioned ponies.

Did someone say ponies?