A question for the pro abortion people

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by logical1, May 18, 2019.

  1. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    32,457
    Likes Received:
    9,798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You acknowledged that not all abortions are necessary, which clarifies your initial statement.
    Thank you .
     
  2. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,080
    Likes Received:
    14,603
    Trophy Points:
    113

    An abortion is deemed "necessary" ONLY by the one who is pregnant.

    YOU don't decide for others what is or isn't necessary in their medical decisions.

    Not all abortions are due to medical conditions nor do they have to be.
     
    tecoyah likes this.
  3. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Argument by Repetition Fallacy. (ARF)
    RAAA.

    [/QUOTE]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 3, 2019
  4. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    It is still forcing morality onto me. For other examples, the government IS currently forcing me to not murder anyone, not assault anyone, not steal from anyone, etc... THAT is legislating morality, all the same. Making the same argument that you attempted making, no one is forcing you to murder, to assault, and to steal... right?? Yet, that morality is legislated upon us all the same. Like I said, it CANNOT be avoided. It comes down to what IS moral and what IS immoral.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2019
  5. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    9,144
    Likes Received:
    5,078
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are incorrect. The government does not force you not to murder. Nothing is stopping you from committing murder.
     
    Collateral Damage likes this.
  6. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,080
    Likes Received:
    14,603
    Trophy Points:
    113

    LAW is made to preserve society. Without laws against murder, theft, etc. there would be chaos.

    Nothing to do with morals.....some people's morals might allow for theft...morals vary from person to person which is why LAWS are NOT based on them.


    NO one is forcing you to do anything...
     
  7. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    According to the line of argumentation I've been participating in, yes they are forcing me. If laws against gay marriage are forcing people to not have homosexual relations, then laws against murder are forcing people to not murder.

    Technically, one could argue that there is no forcing, due to the free will to do whatever we want, but if we're going to argue that laws against gay marriage are "forcing morality upon us", then laws against murder are also "forcing morality upon us". You can't have it both ways.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2019
  8. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    9,144
    Likes Received:
    5,078
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are confusing a deterrent with force.
     
  9. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Firstly, how does a law allowing or banning gay marriage "preserve society" or "stop chaos" (akin to how murder/theft can cause chaos)??

    Secondly, according to you, laws are not based on "morals which vary from person to person", yet a law legalizing gay marriage (a moral which varies from person to person) doesn't fall into that category??

    You are now attempting to argue a paradox (that I have outlined below). You must clear your paradox for rational argumentation to continue...

    [1] Laws are not based on morals.
    [2] Legalized gay marriage (a moral) is a law. (Laws ARE based on morals).
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2019
  10. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    No, I'm simply pointing out the attempt to "have it both ways" regarding legalized and illegal gay marriages, where in one case it is a "deterrent" and in the other case it is "forcing". In one case it is "legislating morality" and in the other case it is not "legislating morality".
     
  11. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    9,144
    Likes Received:
    5,078
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Keeping the goal post right where it is, there is no law that forces people to do anything. A law is only as good as ones willingness to follow. Abortion laws do not force women to give birth. Laws against gay marriage had zero effect on gay relationships. At worst, the couple didn't have a piece of paper.

    My belief is that is there is no victim, there should be no law.
     
    Collateral Damage likes this.
  12. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,080
    Likes Received:
    14,603
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Uh, gay people have the same rights everyone else has. If their rights are being denied by ignorant people they have a right to be defended...and their rights preserved.

    Just because some people think homosexuality is immoral does NOT mean homosexuals should have their rights taken away.

    Gay rights are NOT "akin to murder/theft.
     
  13. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,899
    Likes Received:
    3,606
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Agree to disagree.
     
  14. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,080
    Likes Received:
    14,603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    UNCHERRY PICKED POST :

    FoxHastings:Uh, gay people have the same rights everyone else has. If their rights are being denied by ignorant people they have a right to be defended...and their rights preserved.

    Just because some people think homosexuality is immoral does NOT mean homosexuals should have their rights taken away.

    Gay rights are NOT "akin to murder/theft.





    If one disagrees it appears to me to look like one doesn't think homosexuals are humans with rights...is that the case?

    Which adds to the assertion that Anti-Choicers only think "life is precious" if it's "life" they approve of....


     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019
  15. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,899
    Likes Received:
    3,606
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Just because you believe people who choose to commit immoral acts should not have the same rights as those who do not in no way means you don't consider them humans with rights.
     
  16. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,080
    Likes Received:
    14,603
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Just because someone thinks their morals are superior to other's morals doesn't mean anyone should lose their rights.

    Thinking someone else is immoral should not mean loss of rights...., someone else could think their morals are superior to yours and want you to lose your rights....


    Rights are not based on morals since "morals" vary from person to person ..
     
  17. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,899
    Likes Received:
    3,606
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Agree to disagree on that as well.
     
  18. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,080
    Likes Received:
    14,603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FoxHastings said:
    Just because someone thinks their morals are superior to other's morals doesn't mean anyone should lose their rights.

    Thinking someone else is immoral should not mean loss of rights...., someone else could think their morals are superior to yours and want you to lose your rights....


    Rights are not based on morals since "morals" vary from person to person ..



    For no reason??!

    Once some people thought it was "moral" to own slaves......so should slaves have lost their right to their own bodies?

    Once some people thought it was immoral for blacks and whites to have the right to inter-marry......and had laws against it taking away a basic right.

    Do you agree with that?
     
  19. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,899
    Likes Received:
    3,606
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No.
    Perhaps if you spent more time thinking about the reasons for your own positions rather than lecturing someone on what you think they believe then your own beliefs would have more intellectual validity.

    From what I've observed, the justification for your own beliefs is little more than "I'm okay, you're okay". No foundation whatsoever.
     
  20. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,080
    Likes Received:
    14,603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FoxHastings said:
    For no reason??!
    Once some people thought it was "moral" to own slaves......so should slaves have lost their right to their own bodies?
    Once some people thought it was immoral for blacks and whites to have the right to inter-marry......and had laws against it taking away a basic right.
    Do you agree with that?



    Then your previous answer, "agree to disagree" is confusing.



    I didn't lecture (if you feel you've been "schooled", that's on you); I asked questions to elicit a better response than "agree to disagree"



    My beliefs are certainly doing better than yours :)

    Yet you can't even discuss them much less refute them....


    "agree to disagree " IS "I'm OK, you're OK.....and I didn't say "agree to disagree"...
     
  21. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,899
    Likes Received:
    3,606
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    None of that made any sense whatsoever
     
  22. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Under that view, I agree. There is no law that forces people to do anything, nor is it even possible for a law to force people to do something. People have free will to do as they please.
     
    Doofenshmirtz likes this.
  23. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Correct.

    They weren't being denied any rights, then or now... They have always had the right to marry. What stops them from marrying is that they are not attracted to the opposite sex.

    They have not had any rights taken away from them. They have always been able to marry.

    You have yet to clear your paradox... I will present it here once again.

    According to you, laws are not based on "morals which vary from person to person", yet a law legalizing gay marriage (a moral which varies from person to person) doesn't fall into that category??

    You are now attempting to argue a paradox (that I have outlined below). You must clear your paradox for rational argumentation to continue...

    [1] Laws are not based on morals.
    [2] Legalized gay marriage (a moral) is a law. (Laws ARE based on morals).

    Which one is it?
     

Share This Page