Talon-chan
Kata Samoes
I'm sorry but the copy-paste of the definition alone doesn't happen very often at all, so why is this an issue?
As for you murder argument, "murder" is a legal term, and not a moral or social term. Legal. Regardless of how badly you may feel abortion is s**t and horrible, doesn't make it murder. I thoughy we were arguing facts here, and not how much it offends the other person the fact doesn't agree with their viewpoint. "Snarky?" Hard to be snarky if you're simply presenting a fact and saying they were wrong, unless you're easily offended.
As for you murder argument, "murder" is a legal term, and not a moral or social term. Legal. Regardless of how badly you may feel abortion is s**t and horrible, doesn't make it murder. I thoughy we were arguing facts here, and not how much it offends the other person the fact doesn't agree with their viewpoint. "Snarky?" Hard to be snarky if you're simply presenting a fact and saying they were wrong, unless you're easily offended.
If a pro-lifer comes into the abortion debate topic and says, "I believe abortion is murder," do you sincerely think they are making an argument about the current state of the law?
If you answer "no" and proceed to bombard them with legal definitions you have committed a strawman by pretending their argument is something you know it is not, just because they may not be as articulate as you are.
By doing this you are not convincing that pro-lifer that women's rights ought to be preserved, and at worst you are solidifying their already held convictions that we are a bunch of cold hearted baby killers willing to stand by an unjust law just because it is the law.
And who argued that? Murder is a LEGAL TERM, Talon. If I correct someone on their incorrect terminology, you're right I'm not convincing that with that object alone. Is it my only argument?
No. So why are you focusing on it as though it is? From what I've seen, there are choicers who do make these arguments. Most, including myself? Not the case.
I don't understand how this is a complaint if it's not the argument the majority of the time.
Talon-chan
If your goal, as a pro-choicer, is to ensure women's rights by convincing those opposed to abortion that it should remain legal, you've failed by doing the above as described.
No I have not. I corrected terminology. Then, and you've seen this, choicers will ask why they feel that way.
Talon-chan
As for the frequency: I admit I have not been in the abortion debate topics recently, but when I have been there, almost every single time someone has said "I believe abortion is murder" they have been met with, "well you're wrong because murder is defined as..." Even if this argument is only used once that is one time too many.
No, it's not, unless it's the ONLY argument they use. If you're correcting someone on legal terminology, it's not an argument being made. "Abortion is murder, why isn't it illegal?" is corrected for the argument:
"I believe abortion is murder." *Presented it's not legally murder, then asked why they feel that way*
This bit I don't understand, though: One too many times, because they address incorrect information?
Talon-chan
Where does bodily autonomy come from? The law says we have it. So, why should we impose our law (which amounts to nothing more than a moral philosophy that just so happens to be secular and generally agreed upon by those under its rule) onto the unwilling? What reason is there to force the concept of bodily autonomy on those who do not believe it exists? Just because the concept is secular in nature, does not make it any less a moral philosophy subject to the same objections as imposing christianity on the unwilling. Just because pro-lifers have never had a big enough collective brain to press this line of questioning does not make it less a weak point.
Here I thought it wasn't just the law, it was a social choice and right, enforced by the community in relative moral agreement and turned into law being it is secular in origin. Law isn't the law because it's the law. You got society too. Who argued otherwise?
As for the force of this right? "You have a choice!" "I don't WANT a choice!" I'm sorry, where is the right to MAKING A CHOICE being forced unto others? It's not. It's a right, a freedom, not a duty or oppressive choice. How can I impose an unwanted option upon you? By forcing you to do it. If you know you won't do it, where is this being imposed to the unwilling?
You never answered my question, how is it not a weak argument when they're arguing based on their RELIGION and not just morals?
Then we get into the concept of individual morals, so it's not wrong to me even if it is to others. Moral relativism, how is it relevant when argued on its own?
Talon-chan
You are bringing up two issues: [1] Fetal personhood, and [2] the impact the state of the adoption system has on abortion rights. I am only concerned with [2].
No, actually, [2] is not the issue I'm addressing. I'm addressing reasons many choose abortion over adoption, being as they feel it's a poor choice. Where did I argue it relates directly with their legal/social right to abort?
Talon-chan
To clarify my complaint:
If a pro-choicer says, "Biological independence is necessary to be a person" why does it matter how an individual is dependent for the purposes of determining personhood?
Yes, if they are infringing on another human being then there is an issue of bodily autonomy, but if we are only trying to determine "are fetuses persons," and "biological independence" is a a bullet on the checklist for determining that, then how that dependence manifests itself is irrelevant.
The solution is to change the bullet: biological independence is not a factor in personhood OR biological independence under specific circumstances is a factor to personhood. But as it stands biological independence is not adequate.
If a pro-choicer says, "Biological independence is necessary to be a person" why does it matter how an individual is dependent for the purposes of determining personhood?
Yes, if they are infringing on another human being then there is an issue of bodily autonomy, but if we are only trying to determine "are fetuses persons," and "biological independence" is a a bullet on the checklist for determining that, then how that dependence manifests itself is irrelevant.
The solution is to change the bullet: biological independence is not a factor in personhood OR biological independence under specific circumstances is a factor to personhood. But as it stands biological independence is not adequate.
Solution goes into the theory of social evolution, but we're not focusing on that right now. The "how" is irrelevant, and it's also NOT the only characteristic being pointed out. We're not arguing that at all. You are.
What is being argued is IF they're biologically independent. In context of abortion, this refers to being biologically independent from another person. Then HOW they are is confirming: yes they're not attached to another person to live. After which point, other aspects and characteristics are looked at: is the fetus sentient or even sapient? Can it feel? Is it conscious? Can it immediately affect people other than the woman? All the answers point to NO. How is the fetus a person? (rhetorical question)
I've seen few times where someone will focus ONLY on biological independence as the reason. I fail to see this as an issue.
Talon-chan
Kata Samoes
Talon-chan
I'm not trying to be mean, but honestly, the best thing we can do for ourselves is find our weakpoints and try to fix them. These are what I consider some pro-choice weakpoints.
And..I disagree. I like to argue with facts, not my opinions to avoid offending people simply because I disagree.
Thus far I've used logic and reasoning to explain why some arguments used by pro-choicers are unsound, invalid, and are otherwise not worth being used. I'd appreciate it if you'd show me the same respect I've shown you by not insinuating I'm pulling opinions out of my a** and parading them around as fact, otherwise it is not worth my time to continue this conversation. Your response to this post will dictate whether I bother any further to discuss disagreements with you or put you on my ignore list given how absolutely insufferable you've been to me lately for apparently no other reason then I disagreed with something you've had to say.
I've insuated nothing of the sort. I am confronting you about your wanting for people changing their arguments because they may piss a couple off out of disagreement and being easily offended. I am disagreeing with you and explaining how, since it does NOT seem logical to me and the facts keep coming back to individual opinions and walking on eggshells to avoid hurting someone's feelings.
That's all. Nothing more.
