- Joined
- Jun 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44
Warning - VERY LONG POST!!! (copied from i-cant-remember-where)
its very interesting to read.
My posting this does NOT imply that i take a stand either for or against abortion, just thought you'd like it.
1. The newly conceived being is a part of the mother’s body. Since people are not part of other people’s bodies, the fetus is not human.*
This assertion can be objected ad absurdum, that is, it must be objected because it is absurd. Think. Recall the transitive relation, and modify it. A is part of B, B is part of C, therefore A is part of C. My foot is part of my leg, my leg is part of my body, ergo the foot is part of my body. A brick is part of a wall, the wall is part of the school, therefore that brick is part of the school.
With that in mind, think. It is an established fact that the fetus has it’s own genetic code. Therefore, using the transitive relation, I can conclude that the mother now has two genetic codes. I will take this several steps further. Later in growth, and normal male fetus will grow a penis. Using the same argument, I can conclude that the mother also has a penis. A normal fetus will grow four limbs. Using the argument, I conclude that the mother has two sets of hands, and two sets of legs, or eight limbs total. Some pro-abortionists claim anti-abortionists confuse fetuses and people; I say that they confuse mothers with spiders.
You will also be hard pressed to find the body part “fetus” in an anatomy book.
2. The fetus does not look human. How can a clump of cells be human?
First off, the language itself is misleading. You think of something jumbled and disorganized when you think of a clump, and a growing baby is not like this.
Secondly, appearance is morally irrelevant, and it also can be misleading. What something looks like does not make it what it is.
A war veteran with half his face missing and three-and-a-half limbs chewed off by bullets may not look human, but can you say he is not human because of his appearance.
The sun may appear to be a bright yellow coin smaller than the Earth, but that does not change its nature as a roiling ball of nuclear fire that is so huge compared to earth.
Also, the criterion is irrelevant. I do not seek to know what it looks like, but what it is.
3. If a fetus is viable, let it be a human being. If not, no.
I am still a person if I leave planet earth. Infants back 2,000 years ago were also human. Therefore humanness is not determined by time or place.
If an infant, which is a person, is born, it may need a incubator to survive. In the city, the device would readily available, and the child would be "viable" (able to survive). However, go to a different place, like a deserted island, and it would not. Therefore, viabilty is determined by place
An infant that requires an incubator to survive would get it in today’s age. But an infant 2,000 years ago would not. Therefore viability is determined by time
If personhood is not determined by place or time, and viability is, then viability cannot be a universal mark of personhood.
4. If fetus can be independent of its mother, then let it be human.
If this criteria makes one human, then no one is a human being. Infants and toddlers are dependent on their parents. The elderly and sick are dependent on the caretakers. “Normal” people are dependent on nature and other people. This argument must also be rejected ad absurdum, since this would keep all people out of the class of people.
5. A fetus is not developed human, therefore it is okay to kill it.
The argument presupposes that the fetus differs from an adult be degree, not kind.
If this argument is allowed, then development and matters of degree would be morally relevant criteria. It would follow that is less evil to murder a newborn than toddler than a two-year old than a forty year old. Since we know that it isn’t true that killing a toddler is less evil than killing an adult, it must be rejected.
6. Rape should be a good enough reason for a legal abortion.
Should it really? If someone’s dad kills my dad, then he dad is guilty. However, by that argument, it would follow that the dad should be imprisoned, and the son killed. That is absurd. A person guilty should be the only one punished.
The rapist is guilty. The mother and baby are innocent. How is it just to execute the baby (without a trial) when the baby has done nothing wrong?
7. You anti-abortionists force women to have babies due to incest or rape.
This is untrue rhetoric. First, the anti-abortionists does not force a woman to have a baby. The rapist does that. It is his fault the baby is there in the first place.
Second, the anti-abortionist does not force a woman to have a baby. It can be said that nature does so. The only thing anti-abortionists force a woman to do is to not murder her baby, to “fight fire with a nuclear bomb” to answer a despicable, evil act with an even more despicable and evil act.
8. A baby who will be deformed should be put out of its misery.*
What does this mean? If I use this criterion, I ask this question: is it allowable to kill deformed adults? The conclusion would follow using this argument.
9. A baby should only be born into an environment where it will be loved, and where the parents can share their love with the child.
I actually agree with this... to a degree. It should happen... but it doesn’t always happen.
How can we solve this, then? Kill the babies that are going to be born in a less-then-perfect environment. Or make their life better?
As well as being morally irrelevant, it also has this implication: people are means, not ends. This argument only treats a person as valuable if he/she will bring joy and love to his/her parents. See? People are not intrinsically important, but they are only important if they produce love for the parents.
Also, what of people who are not loved? Should we kill them too?
10. The anti-abortionist stance is only a front for the Church to exert more control.*
Well, first off, this is highly conspiratorial.
Second, I do not plan on using religious rhetoric to get my point across.
None of my arguments have been religious.
11. Anti-Abortion laws will lead to alleyway abortions that will be dangerous to the woman. Better for her to have the procedure carried out in a safe environment.
Perhaps. I do not know the future. Perhaps once made illegal, woman will stop abortions. One can hope.
Now... Abortion is “safe”, it says. Safe for whom?
Every once and a while something goes very wrong in an abortion, and the mother and child both die. Many studies have been carried out that try to connect diseases to abortions. Whatever.
Now, the point: The abortion might be safe for the woman (which is arguable), but what about the child? It’s not safe for it... it’s being killed! If that’s a safe procedure, I’ll eat a Tarutaru.
12. People will break anti-abortion rules anyway; it’s unenforceable. Therefore, why waste the time and money to make it illegal?
This would assume that unenforceable laws are bad things. Well, if that is proven false, the argument crumbles.
Take anti-suicide laws. They are unenforceable. Look at it like this: People, some, not all, are conditioned by laws, in other words, they do or don’t do things sometimes based on what laws say. Now, a person who is considering suicide might decide against it because of the laws. Now, little is lost in making a law, but all is lost when a person kills himself. Therefore, unenforceable laws are not useless, and this premise crumbles.
Here’s another. If the criterion for denying laws is how unenforceable they are, look at this: Despite laws, car theft, rape, and homicides have rose. Now, since these laws also seem to be unenforceable, does it follow that we should abolish them too since we can’t enforce them?
13. It’s all a matter of opinion. We can’t decide, so leave it up to what people think.
If we kept that mentality, we would still have slavery and a ban on women voting. Just because issues seem to be irresolvable doesn’t mean we should stop trying to find out the truth.
People may hold different opinions on what the child is, but they are either right or not right. We can’t just “leave it up to opinion” because that would be dishonest and disrespectful of truth.
13. Abortion protects a woman’s reproductive freedom.*
Not really. If a boy doesn’t have condoms or a girl doesn’t have IUDs or pills, it doesn’t mean they have reproductive freedom. (Abortion is, at its heart, backup birth control)
A woman will always have reproductive freedom. What she wants “freedom” from is what sex was truly meant for: reproduction (if you’re a secular biologist) and love (If you’re a Christian biologist). If a woman can’t handle the fact the sex sometimes produces babies, then she should forget about it, or do some hell of a job with contraceptives.
15. If a woman has a baby at the wrong time, it might ruin her life. She should terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible.
Let’s assume a girl is pregnant and can’t have an abortion, and it will ruin her life. Should she kill herself? No, because life is more important than staying in high school, a job, money, and popularity. Now, that said, human life is apparently more valuable than human-created things. Then it is inconsistent to say that the girl should murder a human life to keep said artificial things.
16. Humanness is not a big “poof”. It happens gradually.
Whenever there is something “gradual”, there is always a time when it becomes non-X to X. In the “gray area between white and black” there is a point, not matter how small, when white gives way to black
Also, it also does not make sense. If something is not human at time-1, how can it magically transform to a person at time-2?
17. If you judge personhood on DNA, you’re skin has human DNA too. Don’t scratch yourself*
Like it our not, there’s a big difference between part of a person and the person as a whole. For example, if a person cuts off my arm, he has only killed a part of me. But If her cuts off my head, he’s killed me.
In an abortion, the cells that make up a new, distinct human being are nulled and thus the human being is murdered, while scratching takes out part of me, not me.
(Actually, I do believe that upper epidermis is dead anyway)
18. Anti-abortionists kill abortionists; what can be said about that?
Well, this is a faulty argument, since it deals with the people, not any specific argument.
However... it is kind of a poetic justice, as horrible as it is. The abortion laws give people the right to kill U.S. citizens, so why can’t anti-abortionists also exercise this right?
(I’m not endorsing what the killers are doing as right; I’m just noting the implication of abortion laws, and the consistency of keeping them upheld.
19. What of women who are gong to dies if they don’t get an abortion?
Very rarely does a true “if she doesn’t get an abortion, she’ll die,” case arise. Mostly they’re just women who want an excuse to murder their kid. However, take a fallopian pregnancy. If a woman doesn’t get the baby moved, she’ll die or become severely damaged. Now, if she goes to get this fixed, is it an abortion? Nope. An abortion is solely for convenience. If the baby is killed in an operation designed to save the mother’s life, because of fate or chance, it was not an intentional killing, and is therefore not a murder.
20. The fetus displays no brainwaves and doesn’t act human. It can’t be human.
Comatose people don’t either. Are they human? Can I kill them too?
Also, that is beside the point. To be able to display human brainwaves, one has to be a human being to make them. Nature is economical; the fetus has no need for them in a protected environment. Also, what a fetus does not change what it is.
A human being will do as it is, but a human being is not as it does.
This philosophy is Functionalism, which says humans are only humans if they act or function in a certain way. But... what about those who don’t function as normal?
21. You anti-abortionists are so damned sure of yourselves. Prove to me, 100% that the fetus is a human being
Got me! I can’t prove it 100%, though I’m close to 99.99% sure.
But then, If I can’t prove it’s human, you can’t prove it’s not human.
So, are you willing to take the chance you’re committing murder? That’s stupid.
Take hunting. I have a big .30-cal rifle, and I spy movement in the underbrush. I can’t tell that it’s a deer, but who cares? I fire. Is that responsible? What if killed a man? Homicide!
Let’s say I’m driving down a dimly lit road at night. I come across a pile of clothing. It’s vaguely man-sized and shaped, but I’m not sure… what do I do? What would you do? Go around it or stop and check? Or keep driving and run over it?
That said, a willingness to commit abortion without knowing if it’s human or not shows a willingness to kill humans. “We do not play light with the things we prize”
A man is hiking, and discovers a large, thick canvas bag with “Acme Armored Car Company” emblazoned on the front. He feels it, and it looks like there’s money in there. It’s unlikely to be anything else, but he isn’t 100% sure. He doesn’t have the tools to open it out here; he’ll have to take it home.
He leaves it behind, thinking it’s too much effort
We conclude that the man doesn’t really care about money, since there’s a large chance that it is really money, and he doesn’t care anyway.
In the same way, pro-abortionists who say “I don’t know” admit that they will play fast and loose with innocent human life.
We can’t be sure, so why take the chance that we commit murder?
IN CONCLUSION
Well, that’s that. I’ve covered why I believe, and some arguments I’ve come across. I hope you people can see these arguments, and honestly look at them, and come to an honest decision.
I welcome questions, rebuttals, and other arguments.
MISCELLNEOUS FACTS
1. Planned Parenthood was founded by a bisexual woman who wanted sterilization of the lower classes.
2. In California, it is illegal for a third party to kill a woman’s fetus. However, if a woman goes and gets a doctor to kill it, it’s perfectly legal. Extremely contradictory.
3. Before Hitler seduced the pre-Nazi Germans with his hatemongering, abortions were at an all time high in Germany
4. Find a woman who wants to keep her baby who refers to it as a “fetus”. Find a woman who wants an abortion and calls the being a “baby”
The debate: I do this debate not to “win” but to find truth. If, through this series of exchanges, I find that I am in error, I will thank whoever has corrected me, for truth is always good, and seeking truth is the ultimate task. If I can answer objections to my satisfaction, I will conclude that I have vindicated my position, and I will be satisfied. If someone puts forward and objection that does not convince me, but I can also not refute, I will examine my reasons for holding my position.
LOGIC 101 To argue logically against something, you must:
1. Find ambiguous terms and/or
2. Find faulty logic and/or
3. Find a false premise
MY STANCE ON ABORTION : My position on abortion can be expressed in these three three-step syllogisms:
1a. Evil actions can destroy our physical well-being and our spiritual health.
1b. Evil actions deserve to be stopped.
1c. One way to stop evil actions is to outlaw them.
2a. Murder is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.
2b. Murder is evil
2c. Murder should be made illegal in all circumstances.
3a. Abortion is murder (the deliberate killing of an innocent human being)
3b. Abortion is evil
3c. Abortion should be made illegal in all circumstances
EXAMINATION: Here I will examine my steps more in depth, with the exception of steps 1a-1c, and 2b-2c, since I think you all hold these steps to be true.
2a Examination: If I run over an innocent human being with my Mercedes (My mom got it cheap, for like 13,000, so no, I’m not a rich prick), I am not a murder, because I did not intend to hit the person. If I kill a guilty person (i.e. execution) that is not murder, since the person is not innocent. (This doesn’t necessarily mean I like the death penalty; rather, it shows that I don’t think the death penalty is murder.) If I deliberately kill an innocent fish, it is not murder, because a fish is not a human, and is not entitled to the rights of a human being. If I deliberately knock an innocent person out, it is not murder, because the person has not been killed. Therefore, an act must meet all four criteria to be a de facto murder.
3a Examination If to kill a human being is evil, then abortion is murder, since it deliberately slays an innocent human being.
3b Examination: If a abortion is murder, the logical rule of transitive relations (A=B, B=C, ergo A=C) shows that abortion is evil.
3c Examination Like step 3b, this is similar. If evil actions should be outlawed, and abortion is an evil action, then abortion should be made illegal.
THE KEY QUESTION: IS THE BEING GROWING IN THE MOTHER’S BODY A HUMAN BEING WHO HAS EVERY RIGHT OT LIFE?
This will be a presentation, and I will answer objections after this.
A normal male spermatozoon is exactly one-half of a normal human being’s total gene count. A normal female ovum is exactly one-half of a normal human being’s total gene count. When these two haploid reproductive cells meet, they produce a new being who has a correct gene count, and is completely new. Genetically, a zygote, then an embryo, then a fetus is a distinct human being. The baby isn’t some copy or another bodypart; it is a completely distinct and new member to the species Homo Sapiens, and should be treated as such.
[/b]
its very interesting to read.
My posting this does NOT imply that i take a stand either for or against abortion, just thought you'd like it.
1. The newly conceived being is a part of the mother’s body. Since people are not part of other people’s bodies, the fetus is not human.*
This assertion can be objected ad absurdum, that is, it must be objected because it is absurd. Think. Recall the transitive relation, and modify it. A is part of B, B is part of C, therefore A is part of C. My foot is part of my leg, my leg is part of my body, ergo the foot is part of my body. A brick is part of a wall, the wall is part of the school, therefore that brick is part of the school.
With that in mind, think. It is an established fact that the fetus has it’s own genetic code. Therefore, using the transitive relation, I can conclude that the mother now has two genetic codes. I will take this several steps further. Later in growth, and normal male fetus will grow a penis. Using the same argument, I can conclude that the mother also has a penis. A normal fetus will grow four limbs. Using the argument, I conclude that the mother has two sets of hands, and two sets of legs, or eight limbs total. Some pro-abortionists claim anti-abortionists confuse fetuses and people; I say that they confuse mothers with spiders.
You will also be hard pressed to find the body part “fetus” in an anatomy book.
2. The fetus does not look human. How can a clump of cells be human?
First off, the language itself is misleading. You think of something jumbled and disorganized when you think of a clump, and a growing baby is not like this.
Secondly, appearance is morally irrelevant, and it also can be misleading. What something looks like does not make it what it is.
A war veteran with half his face missing and three-and-a-half limbs chewed off by bullets may not look human, but can you say he is not human because of his appearance.
The sun may appear to be a bright yellow coin smaller than the Earth, but that does not change its nature as a roiling ball of nuclear fire that is so huge compared to earth.
Also, the criterion is irrelevant. I do not seek to know what it looks like, but what it is.
3. If a fetus is viable, let it be a human being. If not, no.
I am still a person if I leave planet earth. Infants back 2,000 years ago were also human. Therefore humanness is not determined by time or place.
If an infant, which is a person, is born, it may need a incubator to survive. In the city, the device would readily available, and the child would be "viable" (able to survive). However, go to a different place, like a deserted island, and it would not. Therefore, viabilty is determined by place
An infant that requires an incubator to survive would get it in today’s age. But an infant 2,000 years ago would not. Therefore viability is determined by time
If personhood is not determined by place or time, and viability is, then viability cannot be a universal mark of personhood.
4. If fetus can be independent of its mother, then let it be human.
If this criteria makes one human, then no one is a human being. Infants and toddlers are dependent on their parents. The elderly and sick are dependent on the caretakers. “Normal” people are dependent on nature and other people. This argument must also be rejected ad absurdum, since this would keep all people out of the class of people.
5. A fetus is not developed human, therefore it is okay to kill it.
The argument presupposes that the fetus differs from an adult be degree, not kind.
If this argument is allowed, then development and matters of degree would be morally relevant criteria. It would follow that is less evil to murder a newborn than toddler than a two-year old than a forty year old. Since we know that it isn’t true that killing a toddler is less evil than killing an adult, it must be rejected.
6. Rape should be a good enough reason for a legal abortion.
Should it really? If someone’s dad kills my dad, then he dad is guilty. However, by that argument, it would follow that the dad should be imprisoned, and the son killed. That is absurd. A person guilty should be the only one punished.
The rapist is guilty. The mother and baby are innocent. How is it just to execute the baby (without a trial) when the baby has done nothing wrong?
7. You anti-abortionists force women to have babies due to incest or rape.
This is untrue rhetoric. First, the anti-abortionists does not force a woman to have a baby. The rapist does that. It is his fault the baby is there in the first place.
Second, the anti-abortionist does not force a woman to have a baby. It can be said that nature does so. The only thing anti-abortionists force a woman to do is to not murder her baby, to “fight fire with a nuclear bomb” to answer a despicable, evil act with an even more despicable and evil act.
8. A baby who will be deformed should be put out of its misery.*
What does this mean? If I use this criterion, I ask this question: is it allowable to kill deformed adults? The conclusion would follow using this argument.
9. A baby should only be born into an environment where it will be loved, and where the parents can share their love with the child.
I actually agree with this... to a degree. It should happen... but it doesn’t always happen.
How can we solve this, then? Kill the babies that are going to be born in a less-then-perfect environment. Or make their life better?
As well as being morally irrelevant, it also has this implication: people are means, not ends. This argument only treats a person as valuable if he/she will bring joy and love to his/her parents. See? People are not intrinsically important, but they are only important if they produce love for the parents.
Also, what of people who are not loved? Should we kill them too?
10. The anti-abortionist stance is only a front for the Church to exert more control.*
Well, first off, this is highly conspiratorial.
Second, I do not plan on using religious rhetoric to get my point across.
None of my arguments have been religious.
11. Anti-Abortion laws will lead to alleyway abortions that will be dangerous to the woman. Better for her to have the procedure carried out in a safe environment.
Perhaps. I do not know the future. Perhaps once made illegal, woman will stop abortions. One can hope.
Now... Abortion is “safe”, it says. Safe for whom?
Every once and a while something goes very wrong in an abortion, and the mother and child both die. Many studies have been carried out that try to connect diseases to abortions. Whatever.
Now, the point: The abortion might be safe for the woman (which is arguable), but what about the child? It’s not safe for it... it’s being killed! If that’s a safe procedure, I’ll eat a Tarutaru.
12. People will break anti-abortion rules anyway; it’s unenforceable. Therefore, why waste the time and money to make it illegal?
This would assume that unenforceable laws are bad things. Well, if that is proven false, the argument crumbles.
Take anti-suicide laws. They are unenforceable. Look at it like this: People, some, not all, are conditioned by laws, in other words, they do or don’t do things sometimes based on what laws say. Now, a person who is considering suicide might decide against it because of the laws. Now, little is lost in making a law, but all is lost when a person kills himself. Therefore, unenforceable laws are not useless, and this premise crumbles.
Here’s another. If the criterion for denying laws is how unenforceable they are, look at this: Despite laws, car theft, rape, and homicides have rose. Now, since these laws also seem to be unenforceable, does it follow that we should abolish them too since we can’t enforce them?
13. It’s all a matter of opinion. We can’t decide, so leave it up to what people think.
If we kept that mentality, we would still have slavery and a ban on women voting. Just because issues seem to be irresolvable doesn’t mean we should stop trying to find out the truth.
People may hold different opinions on what the child is, but they are either right or not right. We can’t just “leave it up to opinion” because that would be dishonest and disrespectful of truth.
13. Abortion protects a woman’s reproductive freedom.*
Not really. If a boy doesn’t have condoms or a girl doesn’t have IUDs or pills, it doesn’t mean they have reproductive freedom. (Abortion is, at its heart, backup birth control)
A woman will always have reproductive freedom. What she wants “freedom” from is what sex was truly meant for: reproduction (if you’re a secular biologist) and love (If you’re a Christian biologist). If a woman can’t handle the fact the sex sometimes produces babies, then she should forget about it, or do some hell of a job with contraceptives.
15. If a woman has a baby at the wrong time, it might ruin her life. She should terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible.
Let’s assume a girl is pregnant and can’t have an abortion, and it will ruin her life. Should she kill herself? No, because life is more important than staying in high school, a job, money, and popularity. Now, that said, human life is apparently more valuable than human-created things. Then it is inconsistent to say that the girl should murder a human life to keep said artificial things.
16. Humanness is not a big “poof”. It happens gradually.
Whenever there is something “gradual”, there is always a time when it becomes non-X to X. In the “gray area between white and black” there is a point, not matter how small, when white gives way to black
Also, it also does not make sense. If something is not human at time-1, how can it magically transform to a person at time-2?
17. If you judge personhood on DNA, you’re skin has human DNA too. Don’t scratch yourself*
Like it our not, there’s a big difference between part of a person and the person as a whole. For example, if a person cuts off my arm, he has only killed a part of me. But If her cuts off my head, he’s killed me.
In an abortion, the cells that make up a new, distinct human being are nulled and thus the human being is murdered, while scratching takes out part of me, not me.
(Actually, I do believe that upper epidermis is dead anyway)
18. Anti-abortionists kill abortionists; what can be said about that?
Well, this is a faulty argument, since it deals with the people, not any specific argument.
However... it is kind of a poetic justice, as horrible as it is. The abortion laws give people the right to kill U.S. citizens, so why can’t anti-abortionists also exercise this right?
(I’m not endorsing what the killers are doing as right; I’m just noting the implication of abortion laws, and the consistency of keeping them upheld.
19. What of women who are gong to dies if they don’t get an abortion?
Very rarely does a true “if she doesn’t get an abortion, she’ll die,” case arise. Mostly they’re just women who want an excuse to murder their kid. However, take a fallopian pregnancy. If a woman doesn’t get the baby moved, she’ll die or become severely damaged. Now, if she goes to get this fixed, is it an abortion? Nope. An abortion is solely for convenience. If the baby is killed in an operation designed to save the mother’s life, because of fate or chance, it was not an intentional killing, and is therefore not a murder.
20. The fetus displays no brainwaves and doesn’t act human. It can’t be human.
Comatose people don’t either. Are they human? Can I kill them too?
Also, that is beside the point. To be able to display human brainwaves, one has to be a human being to make them. Nature is economical; the fetus has no need for them in a protected environment. Also, what a fetus does not change what it is.
A human being will do as it is, but a human being is not as it does.
This philosophy is Functionalism, which says humans are only humans if they act or function in a certain way. But... what about those who don’t function as normal?
21. You anti-abortionists are so damned sure of yourselves. Prove to me, 100% that the fetus is a human being
Got me! I can’t prove it 100%, though I’m close to 99.99% sure.
But then, If I can’t prove it’s human, you can’t prove it’s not human.
So, are you willing to take the chance you’re committing murder? That’s stupid.
Take hunting. I have a big .30-cal rifle, and I spy movement in the underbrush. I can’t tell that it’s a deer, but who cares? I fire. Is that responsible? What if killed a man? Homicide!
Let’s say I’m driving down a dimly lit road at night. I come across a pile of clothing. It’s vaguely man-sized and shaped, but I’m not sure… what do I do? What would you do? Go around it or stop and check? Or keep driving and run over it?
That said, a willingness to commit abortion without knowing if it’s human or not shows a willingness to kill humans. “We do not play light with the things we prize”
A man is hiking, and discovers a large, thick canvas bag with “Acme Armored Car Company” emblazoned on the front. He feels it, and it looks like there’s money in there. It’s unlikely to be anything else, but he isn’t 100% sure. He doesn’t have the tools to open it out here; he’ll have to take it home.
He leaves it behind, thinking it’s too much effort
We conclude that the man doesn’t really care about money, since there’s a large chance that it is really money, and he doesn’t care anyway.
In the same way, pro-abortionists who say “I don’t know” admit that they will play fast and loose with innocent human life.
We can’t be sure, so why take the chance that we commit murder?
IN CONCLUSION
Well, that’s that. I’ve covered why I believe, and some arguments I’ve come across. I hope you people can see these arguments, and honestly look at them, and come to an honest decision.
I welcome questions, rebuttals, and other arguments.
MISCELLNEOUS FACTS
1. Planned Parenthood was founded by a bisexual woman who wanted sterilization of the lower classes.
2. In California, it is illegal for a third party to kill a woman’s fetus. However, if a woman goes and gets a doctor to kill it, it’s perfectly legal. Extremely contradictory.
3. Before Hitler seduced the pre-Nazi Germans with his hatemongering, abortions were at an all time high in Germany
4. Find a woman who wants to keep her baby who refers to it as a “fetus”. Find a woman who wants an abortion and calls the being a “baby”
The debate: I do this debate not to “win” but to find truth. If, through this series of exchanges, I find that I am in error, I will thank whoever has corrected me, for truth is always good, and seeking truth is the ultimate task. If I can answer objections to my satisfaction, I will conclude that I have vindicated my position, and I will be satisfied. If someone puts forward and objection that does not convince me, but I can also not refute, I will examine my reasons for holding my position.
LOGIC 101 To argue logically against something, you must:
1. Find ambiguous terms and/or
2. Find faulty logic and/or
3. Find a false premise
MY STANCE ON ABORTION : My position on abortion can be expressed in these three three-step syllogisms:
1a. Evil actions can destroy our physical well-being and our spiritual health.
1b. Evil actions deserve to be stopped.
1c. One way to stop evil actions is to outlaw them.
2a. Murder is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.
2b. Murder is evil
2c. Murder should be made illegal in all circumstances.
3a. Abortion is murder (the deliberate killing of an innocent human being)
3b. Abortion is evil
3c. Abortion should be made illegal in all circumstances
EXAMINATION: Here I will examine my steps more in depth, with the exception of steps 1a-1c, and 2b-2c, since I think you all hold these steps to be true.
2a Examination: If I run over an innocent human being with my Mercedes (My mom got it cheap, for like 13,000, so no, I’m not a rich prick), I am not a murder, because I did not intend to hit the person. If I kill a guilty person (i.e. execution) that is not murder, since the person is not innocent. (This doesn’t necessarily mean I like the death penalty; rather, it shows that I don’t think the death penalty is murder.) If I deliberately kill an innocent fish, it is not murder, because a fish is not a human, and is not entitled to the rights of a human being. If I deliberately knock an innocent person out, it is not murder, because the person has not been killed. Therefore, an act must meet all four criteria to be a de facto murder.
3a Examination If to kill a human being is evil, then abortion is murder, since it deliberately slays an innocent human being.
3b Examination: If a abortion is murder, the logical rule of transitive relations (A=B, B=C, ergo A=C) shows that abortion is evil.
3c Examination Like step 3b, this is similar. If evil actions should be outlawed, and abortion is an evil action, then abortion should be made illegal.
THE KEY QUESTION: IS THE BEING GROWING IN THE MOTHER’S BODY A HUMAN BEING WHO HAS EVERY RIGHT OT LIFE?
This will be a presentation, and I will answer objections after this.
A normal male spermatozoon is exactly one-half of a normal human being’s total gene count. A normal female ovum is exactly one-half of a normal human being’s total gene count. When these two haploid reproductive cells meet, they produce a new being who has a correct gene count, and is completely new. Genetically, a zygote, then an embryo, then a fetus is a distinct human being. The baby isn’t some copy or another bodypart; it is a completely distinct and new member to the species Homo Sapiens, and should be treated as such.
[/b]
.