A justification for abortion

[ImprobableJoe]

[
Both Oxford and Websters define a person as such: "a human being regarded as an individual". It does not really matter what Mary Anne Warren thought or believed.

Why does it matter what the dictionary says, any more than what a philosopher says, or what you and I say?

You're chock fucking full of logical fallacies, starting with your bull-headed insistence on saying "moral" and "immoral" as if their meanings are both obvious and objective, which is false.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Here, watch this:

A newborn is indeed a proper snack after a long day of work. Take away the right for us to eat them, then we can do the same for others who cannot speak for themselves. Not eating a newborn just because some random person on the Internet doesn't like it, or because a few people believe that a newborn meets a list of criteria to deserve the right to live, is in of itself immoral.

That's exactly as valid as what you've said, in the opposite direction.

 

[tuxbox]

Why does it matter what the dictionary says, any more than what a philosopher says, or what you and I say?

The dictionary is usually the definition of words that the majority of people believe to be the most accurate. What a philosopher say or believes may not accurate nor believed by the majority of people. The same goes for what you and I believe and/or say.

You're chock fucking full of logical fallacies,

Is it even possible to argue either side of this issue without running into logical fallacies?

starting with your bull-headed insistence on saying "moral" and "immoral" as if their meanings are both obvious and objective, which is false.

So in your opinion, morals are subjective? If so, is there anything that you object to, or do you believe we should live in an "anything goes society"?

 

[tuxbox]

Here, watch this:

A newborn is indeed a proper snack after a long day of work. Take away the right for us to eat them, then we can do the same for others who cannot speak for themselves. Not eating a newborn just because some random person on the Internet doesn't like it, or because a few people believe that a newborn meets a list of criteria to deserve the right to live, is in of itself immoral.

That's exactly as valid as what you've said, in the opposite direction.

I do not see that way, and since the laws of most societies disagree, I believe that the majority people on this planet would disagree as well.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I do not see that way, and since the laws of most societies disagree, I believe that the majority people on this planet would disagree as well.

Logical fallacy. Let's see if you can post without one, just once?

 

[tuxbox]

Logical fallacy. Let's see if you can post without one, just once?

Probably not going to happen...

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Probably not going to happen...

Well, I guess that counted?

Let me see if I can explain the problem to you as I see it. When you say "the dictionary says" without explaining why I should take that meaning as valid, or when you rely on the opinions of a majority, you're just pushing the explanation for your position onto someone else. For the purposes of discussion, you might as well just post "killing babies is wrong because my mommy said so" and you'd get the same response from me. Referring to things as "moral" and "immoral" has a similar effect, because you would have to explain in detail what those words mean, and then explain how you apply them to this specific issue. If you're happy with "I don't like it, therefore we should ban it" that's fine I guess. There's just no room for discussion if you're just going to ignore the thousands of words I've typed on the subject and just say "the dictionary says different, so I win."

 

[tuxbox]

Let me see if I can explain the problem to you as I see it. When you say "the dictionary says" without explaining why I should take that meaning as valid, or when you rely on the opinions of a majority, you're just pushing the explanation for your position onto someone else. For the purposes of discussion, you might as well just post "killing babies is wrong because my mommy said so" and you'd get the same response from me. Referring to things as "moral" and "immoral" has a similar effect, because you would have to explain in detail what those words mean, and then explain how you apply them to this specific issue. If you're happy with "I don't like it, therefore we should ban it" that's fine I guess. There's just no room for discussion if you're just going to ignore the thousands of words I've typed on the subject and just say "the dictionary says different, so I win."

Touché... I will work on my debating skills. For the time being, I am going to give the argument a rest, but I will be back.

BTW, I literally laughed out loud at: "killing babies is wrong because my mommy said so"

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Touché... I will work on my debating skills. For the time being, I am going to give the argument a rest, but I will be back.

BTW, I literally laughed out loud at: "killing babies is wrong because my mommy said so"

That's fine. Better you ignore it until you're more willing/able to devote some time to it. I can almost just barely respect that.

 

[Andiferous]

You're chock fucking full of logical fallacies,

Is it even possible to argue either side of this issue without running into logical fallacies?

Mention of fallacies normally makes me cringe, but in this case I did laugh a little. Tuxbox, as far as I know, your statement is completely accurate.

I guess this is why abortion is one of the top topics to debate on the internet, up there with circumcision (of course). I'm sure we've all argued it a lot, and each time we do, we get closer to understanding our own opinion.