Attempted Socialism wrote:Kexholm Karelia wrote:Reductio ad absurdum
No. It's explicitly what you're arguing for; forcing children in the early teens (Long before their bodies, let alone brains and abilities, are developed enough) to die from childbirth, or women to suffer and/or die from medically preventable ailments (Ectopic implantation as the easiest example). You're all in favour of killing girls and women because you prefer them to die over having the right to decide for themselves what happens in their bodies, especially since in these cases, the foetus will not even be viable. You can't be pro-life, you're pro-death-anti-choice/pro-enslavement-of-women, and just don't have guts to say it out loud. If you think what you're arguing for is absurd, change your opinion, because your failed, immoral, anti-human beliefs have consequences when applied in the real world.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/ ... tions-rape
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/31/nic ... -and-livesYou may want to take another pass at this argument, since you're arguing that those 13% deserve to die, and yet dare to claim that pointing it out is reducing your argument to absurdity. No; your belief that enslaving women is good because 13% of women currently having abortions (Again, according to your numbers) will suffer or die -- as, what, a warning to other women?; Biblical punishment?; their lives do not matter anyway?; 13% being acceptable sacrifice compared to the 87% who will be forced to go through with a pregnancy?; some other insane anti-human justification? -- isn't made absurd by us pointing it out. That belief is immoral from the outset. The absurd thing is that anyone holds that belief.Kexholm Karelia wrote:Let’s look at statistics, only 6-8% of pregnancies are considered "high risk," this is a small minority of pregnancies, but looking at abortions specifically, 13% of abortions in the survey were done for medical necessity, interestingly enough in that same survey, the majority of respondent’s reason was "Having a baby would dramatically change my life."There's no pro-abortion lobby outside the insane conspiracy theories of the anti-choice crowd.Kexholm Karelia wrote:I don’t think its lack of intelligence, just misinformation that’s spread and become a staple in media due to the influence of the pro abortion lobby. Many people don’t realize how much lobbying is done by these groupsIt's the necessary consequence of foetal personhood. If a sexually active woman has a period, that egg might very likely be fertilised, which gives it personhood, but fail to implant for unknown reasons. This, as San Lumen points out, is estimated to be a high percentage (Though I seem to recall the number around 1/3-1/2). So we're at once into at least homicide for all sexually active women. Now, the pill and other hormonal birth control devices work by refusing implantation, which means all hormonal birth control devices become literal murder (Or, more likely, the outlawing of all hormonal birth control). The consequence of your policy is that sexually active women should be investigated for homicide roughly once a month, and some of the most used forms of birth control would be illegal. Again, we're into some deeply immoral shit.Kexholm Karelia wrote:What kind of argument is this supposed to be?
I’m not seeing where that conclusion came from, please elaborateThe Spook Who Sat By The Door wrote:Obviously you believe that's what it's "meant" to do. For people who enjoy rhetoric and logic, that's not what it does. It reeks of immaturity and desperation.
I enjoy rhetoric and logic, and you're absolutely wrong. If an argument really is absurd (As Kexholms is), pointing out that it will have undesired consequences or implications isn't immature or desperate; it's a valid logical statement and often sound rhetoric because it convinces onlookers.Echo Chamber Thought Police wrote:Killing any fertilised human is a moral issue. Abortion is a moral dilemma. I don't think many people consider it amoral.
Prior to 20 weeks? I do consider it morally neutral. There are good reasons to minimise the number of abortions, but those are medical reasons and for the sake of the woman. The analogy here, to me at least, would be the destruction of some other unfeeling thing in the private possession of a person and with little or no impact on society. What's your argument otherwise?
Emphasis mine
AS is posting unnecessarily aggressive remarks in the abortion thread directed at other users. Especially considering AS's record of attacking other uses like this, I think this can be considered a form of flamebait or bad faith posting.
