Declaration of independence, right? the right to life mentioned is a right held by anyone with personhood. You've got it backwards.
*I* think it's magic? I'm not the one who said that a fetus acquires personhood only after it passes through the vaginal canal, as if passing through it magically confers personhood. Took some biology classes - never saw anything about how the vaginal canal confers personhood on those who pass through it. Please, send me a screenshot of the bio book that does. I want to see that page.
Oh, plenty of people can. Some will tell you that passage through the mystical gates of the vaginal canal imparts personhood, making that "clump of cells" a human being. But despite many people being able to tell you what it is, they won't find such specific agreement. What they may find is general agreement, such that we can't all agree on one specific point, but we can mostly agree on a certain point or after.
Yes, it IS as silly as trying to track who will murder which is ONE of the reasons it's stupid to make abortion illegal. BUT it IS DIFFERENT.. ..in a murder there is a BODY and EVIDENCE, in an abortion there is no evidence, not even a body. UNLESS all woman are tracked and monitored there would be no way to suspect, prove or prosecute an abortion. No, a jealous girlfriend or boyfriend cannot just point a finger and claim a woman had an abortion with no proof anymore than they can claim a murder was committed with no proof..
Yuppers!!! sad for YOU but women have that POWER And the law, which is the only thing that counts, says YUP, it isn't a person with rights until it's BORN.... YOU seem to feel it should have more rights than anyone else even before it 's capable of life outside the womb...that's really weird...
How does that relate to :""Sort of hard to deal with for those that commit "abortion for convenience"."" Are you saying that having an abortion to save the life of the woman is a "convenience" ? Any abortion is for "convenience"....if it isn't convenient to have a kid the woman gets an abortion.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy,just fyi. You're position is entirely predicated on appeals to logical fallacies.
The only logical answer that contains no fallacy would be that he/she does not consider the rights of the individual that the fetus is within.
I don't know how you read that into what I said. If the mother's life is threatened, that is abortion to save a life. If giving birth to a baby is a financial problem or puts a burden on ones social life.... that is ending a life for convenience.
How does this actually concern you, or are you in the habit of forcing your unrequested opinion on strangers?
Yup, nothing wrong with that. That's why I had asked "what other kind of abortion is there?" ( Answer: There are none) If a woman chooses to abort rather than to lose her life that, too, is for her convenience, the convenience of not dying...
You mean the only logical answer that you could think of. The limits of your imagination are not the limits of possibility. I'm surprised by this, but it sounds like you guys have never heard of competing rights. Competing rights are when the exercise of one person's rights/freedom abridges those of another. For example, imagine a blind professor with a guide dog, and a student with a severe allergy to dogs. I won't go in depth to explain how those two have competing rights, and take it for granted that the Professor's right to such accommodation is provided by U.S. law, but that interferes with the student's rights by the same law. Obviously one side has to give - perhaps the student will be told they need to take the class with a different professor. I suppose you'd have us believe that "the only logical answer that contains no fallacy would be that he/she does not consider the rights" of the student, if they tell the student that they need to take the class with a different professor (or just not take it). Obviously that is not the case. When competing rights exist, favoring one over the other doesn't require that the reviewer doesn't even consider the rights of one party, but rather that the two are weighed and one is found to be greater, more worthy, however you'd like to phrase it. And quite obviously no one is saying that fetuses have MORE rights than born persons, but the right of the unborn child - who has a functioning heart and brain and is at least into the second trimester - that seems to outweigh the right of the pregnant woman to have an abortion so late for convenience sake.
Again...the fetus has no rights at all so this is what you refer to as fallacy. Until you somehow change our laws to give the fetus rights your entire argument is pointless.
You're making an appeal to authority (fallacy), as well as the "is ought" fallacy. "because it's the law" is the weakest argument anyone can make, and that you are making it is kinda telling...
As this debate concerns said law...there must be authority involved and appealing to it (pointing it out) is certainly NOT fallacy.
How did the Boston Bomber concern you ???? "or are you in the habit of forcing your unrequested opinion on strangers?"
