I'll try again just for fun: What arguments would that be? "small children" have nothing to do with abortion....
Like I already said, which arguments wouldn't they be? Give me an argument of yours and I'll tell you how it could.
See, right here YOU brought up "arguments that could be applied to small children" : kazenatsu said: ↑ Yes, isn't that interesting? So many of the "pro-choice" arguments could be applied to small children too.""" So you had NO answer as usual and so had to try to squirm out of your statement
I said that nearly all of your arguments could be applied to small children. Then I challenged you to select (except for one of them) any one you wanted, and I would explain how I was correct, in that case. I didn't promise to quote all the pro-choice arguments you have ever made and explain them all to you. It was simply an offer, which you've obviously turned down.
According to the standards of proof you are requiring here, no one in the world has any obligation to do anything.
FoxHastings said: ↑ See, right here YOU brought up "arguments that could be applied to small children" ….and provided NO examples nor an explanation....the onus isn't on me to explain YOUR position....you seem to be squirming instead of giving an example or explanation.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Here's a deflect...it's YOU never proving that women have an obligation to give birth and going off in all directions that have nothing to do with that bit of fantasy . So you can't prove that women have an obligation to give birth. I knew that So now you, again, want me to do your work...
Natural law would be that since only woman can give birth only they can continue the species with insemination from men. Simple survival of the species. That we are sentient complicates matters.
Just as a care giver has an obligation not to intentionally kill the person he or she is caring for, so the mother has the obligation not to intentionally kill her child in utero.
If I take a baby with me on a 9-month ship voyage, I am under obligation to take care of that baby until the ship makes its way back to port. I can't say "I'm tired of this" and just toss the baby over the side of the boat. And yes! This even includes a woman who boarded the boat, beginning the journey without realizing she was pregnant, and then later gave birth on the boat. After the baby comes out, she is obligated to take care of it, until the boat finally returns and the baby can be put up for adoption. Exercising "her choice" would be tantamount to murder in this situation. The woman has to "row the boat" to safety first, before her obligation ends.
BORN children have rights so they are taken care of. It's murder to kill a BORN person....again, you have NO analogy whatsoever. You have NEVER shown where this "law" of "women have an obligation to give birth " is....(NOTE, it is "give birth"....) The title of YOUR thread : A woman has an obligation to give birth It has nothing to do with after birth...
I believe that's a circular argument. You argue that only born children have rights because the women doesn't have to use her body to take care of them, but that is exactly what we are talking about here, the woman having to use her body to take care of them. That sort of seems to make the specific issue of whether only born children have rights irreverent and superfluous, as a deciding factor in this argument. You can't raise something as an input factor into an argument when the output of the argument seeks to determine exactly that. Unless, of course, you believe there's a separate reason the unborn shouldn't have rights (and I don't think that's what you're saying), but then that would be a separate argument. Still not relevant to this argument I brought up in my last post.
OH GOSH, once AGAIN you forgot to quote the entire post : BORN children have rights so they are taken care of. It's murder to kill a BORN person....again, you have NO analogy whatsoever. You have NEVER shown where this "law" of "women have an obligation to give birth " is....(NOTE, it is "give birth"....) The title of YOUR thread : A woman has an obligation to give birth It has nothing to do with after birth... And STILL you refuse to see the difference between BORN and UNBORN.....until you do , there really is nothing more I can say except it's denying science to think that a pregnant woman is using her body to support the life of the fetus is the same as ANYONE using their body to take care of a baby..
True, but an analogy can be drawn. It would be up to you to show how they are different. Like we have gone over endless times before, the "It's not a baby" argument, if you could successfully make it, would of course be able to render all Pro-Life arguments moot. But that would probably be the subject for a different separate thread discussion. (You are free to link to such a discussion here, if you desire) If, on the other hand, your argument has something to do with the woman not having an obligation to the baby inside of her, well that is exactly what this analogy is trying to determine. You can't use an input into an argument that is the same issue as the output, without that falling into circular logic. Just to demonstrate that, I could say a woman does have an obligation, therefore the analogy holds true, therefore the woman does have an obligation. Obviously that would be meaningless, since the logic is circular.
Okay, so your issue you are raising is one of the science of gestational age development, and not one of obligation or women's rights? I am just trying to clarify, since you were not entirely clear what this difference is between the born and unborn, which you are referring to in this argument.
Boy are you off base this time. It is murder for anyone to kill a child in utero. Ask Scott Peterson! (unless you happen to be the mother, then you can slaughter at will, which makes no sense and is why so many oppose abortion)
There are different aspects of difference between the born and unborn. I pointed out to you how one of them would involve you using circular logic, and the other is a separate argument from the argument I was making. Since you did not clarify what exact aspect of difference you are talking about, we can only assume you mean one of those two, and therefore you really did not disarm my argument.
Oh, ya, now's about the time you keep repeating nothing like "circular argument" with NO explanation nor rebuttal...
FoxHastings said: ↑ BORN children have rights so they are taken care of. It's murder to kill a BORN person....again, you have NO analogy whatsoever. You have NEVER shown where this "law" of "women have an obligation to give birth " is....(NOTE, it is "give birth"....) The title of YOUR thread : A woman has an obligation to give birth It has nothing to do with after birth... Too bad you couldn't refute or even address the post of mine you quoted..
Let me try to summarize. You basically said a fetus inside a woman is not like a child because they are different. I asked what part of that difference you were talking about. Was it because of gestational development or because the woman would have to use her body to take care of it. You didn't say. I pointed out to you how if you were saying that the woman should not have to take care of it, because a fetus inside a woman is different from a baby, because the woman should not have to take care of it, then that is circular logic. Am I wrong on this point?
