|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:00 pm
Alright. Today in English class I got an essay for an assignment, and I chose to do it on abortion. (And yes, it's a persuasive essay.)
Now, keep in mind that I'm in WV. And there are a lotta Christian conservatives who are likely to throw a s**t fit.
What I need help with is basically this: We need to have 3 main points and 1 opposite view to refute. Buuut...I don't know what I should chose since there's so much I could go on about and I need it to be within 1 to 2 minutes.
Any ideas?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:57 pm
Rebuttal point: Adoption as an option.
Or, because you mention many christians in your area, try refuting the dea that abortion is a sin.
The rest of your points could be BD-oriented, explaining why this right exists even in cases of fault (it's your fault you had sex, so deal!), need the baby NEEDS you!), or previous invitation (You consented to pregnancy when you opened your legs!).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 2:11 pm
Scare Tactic Propaganda Rebuttal point: Adoption as an option. Or, because you mention many christians in your area, try refuting the dea that abortion is a sin. The rest of your points could be BD-oriented, explaining why this right exists even in cases of fault (it's your fault you had sex, so deal!), need the baby NEEDS you!), or previous invitation (You consented to pregnancy when you opened your legs!). Yeah, I was pretty sure I'd need the BD topic, but I was going to use religion and moral standards as the rebuttal (i.e. "BUT GOD SEZ ITS A SIN!!11!!" "Well, I don't believe in your God, now do I?") type of thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 2:30 pm
YamiYumes Scare Tactic Propaganda Rebuttal point: Adoption as an option. Or, because you mention many christians in your area, try refuting the dea that abortion is a sin. The rest of your points could be BD-oriented, explaining why this right exists even in cases of fault (it's your fault you had sex, so deal!), need the baby NEEDS you!), or previous invitation (You consented to pregnancy when you opened your legs!). Yeah, I was pretty sure I'd need the BD topic, but I was going to use religion and moral standards as the rebuttal (i.e. "BUT GOD SEZ ITS A SIN!!11!!" "Well, I don't believe in your God, now do I?") type of thing. Maybe you can do something along the lines of "Abortion isn't a sin according to the Bible, *explains* , but who cares? Not everyone's Christian and this is irrelevant to law."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 2:30 pm
When it comes to presenting an opposing argument, you should use the best argument the pro-lifers have. A teacher will see you picked the worst possible pro-life argument to make your win easier (which is practically committing a straw man), and if the teacher is pro-life she'll grade you harsher for it.
I don't see how you can address 4 individual points (three pro, one con) in 2 minutes. confused
Also, is this set up that you present 3 pro-choice views, one pro-life view, and then rebut the presented pro-life view? Or is one of your three pro-choice views supposed to be the rebuttal (2 pro-choice, 1 pro-life, 1 pro-choice rebut)
Three pro-choice points you ought to make:
1. Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy. Use the car accident analogy and point out that when consenting to sex you are making an agreement between you and the man you are having sex with, whereas consenting to pregnancy would require an agreement between you and the fetus. Since the fetus does not exist at that point in time it is impossible to make an agreement with the fetus hence it is legally impossible to consent to pregnancy during sex.
2. Adoption is not a solution. Unwanted pregnancy is not solved by adoption. Not to mention the abhorrent state our adoption system is in and the fact that some people are just as morally opposed to adoption as they are to abortion (why should one set of morals rule).
3. Bodily domain. 1 - you have a right to decide who uses your body and when. You can choose to consent or refuse sex before it happens. If it happens anyway then it is rape. You can withdraw consent at any time - if you withdraw consent during sex if he does not stop it is rape. You can protect your body from serious harm in the case it is being harmed with the use of lethal force if lethal force is necessary. You can kill a rapist or a torturer, or someone threatining to stab you, if it is reasonable to do so.
A fetus did not get permission prior to occupation. A fetus did not maintain permission during occupation (that is, once pregnant, you withdrew consent). What it does to the body is grievous harm (imagine if a man did to you what a fetus did - 9 months of body mutilation). You may kill a fetus for what it does because there is no other way to stop its serious crime against your body.
One pro-life Argument:
The fetus is a human person with all the rights as any other person, and therefore to kill it without justification is murder.
Do not cite the legal definition of murder because that is a strawman. The argument is not "it is currently the crime of murder" but, "because a fetus is a person killing it ought to be considered the equivalent of murder."
Cite again number 3 - no person, fetus or not, can use your body and use of lethal force is acceptable. It doesn't matter if it is a baby, your rights cannot be removed without classifying women as second class with fewer rights than men and non-pregnant women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 2:31 pm
I think you should include something with BD for sure and I like your idea that not everyone believes in god or follows the same religion. I also like Scare Tactic Propaganda's point about abortion being one option- not the only option. Tell us how this goes. :0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 5:31 pm
Scare Tactic Propaganda ....Or, because you mention many christians in your area, try refuting the dea that abortion is a sin..... I have the perfect link for you if you want to try that. This born-again Christian explains why he beleives abortion is both moral and not a sin. He's very suprising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:53 pm
Talon-chan When it comes to presenting an opposing argument, you should use the best argument the pro-lifers have. A teacher will see you picked the worst possible pro-life argument to make your win easier (which is practically committing a straw man), and if the teacher is pro-life she'll grade you harsher for it. I don't see how you can address 4 individual points (three pro, one con) in 2 minutes. confused Ha...I have no idea unless I talk really REALLY fast. sweatdrop Quote: Also, is this set up that you present 3 pro-choice views, one pro-life view, and then rebut the presented pro-life view? Or is one of your three pro-choice views supposed to be the rebuttal (2 pro-choice, 1 pro-life, 1 pro-choice rebut) It's I present 3 pro-choice statements, and one rebuttal from the pro-life side, and I debate why it's wrong (or why I think it's wrong). Quote: Three pro-choice points you ought to make: 1. Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy. Use the car accident analogy and point out that when consenting to sex you are making an agreement between you and the man you are having sex with, whereas consenting to pregnancy would require an agreement between you and the fetus. Since the fetus does not exist at that point in time it is impossible to make an agreement with the fetus hence it is legally impossible to consent to pregnancy during sex. Is all of this in the library of logic? Cause I'll probably need to print it out and go over it maaaany times before I give my speech. Quote: 2. Adoption is not a solution. Unwanted pregnancy is not solved by adoption. Not to mention the abhorrent state our adoption system is in and the fact that some people are just as morally opposed to adoption as they are to abortion (why should one set of morals rule). Well, I was wanting to stress the Pro-CHOICE. Basically saying we aren't pro-abortion like so many people here think. It's annoying when I have to explain it to so many people that it's their choice. I'm not going to try and influence them either way. I just want them to HAVE that choice so if they need to make one, the opportunity will be there. Quote: 3. Bodily domain. 1 - you have a right to decide who uses your body and when. You can choose to consent or refuse sex before it happens. If it happens anyway then it is rape. You can withdraw consent at any time - if you withdraw consent during sex if he does not stop it is rape. You can protect your body from serious harm in the case it is being harmed with the use of lethal force if lethal force is necessary. You can kill a rapist or a torturer, or someone threatining to stab you, if it is reasonable to do so. A fetus did not get permission prior to occupation. A fetus did not maintain permission during occupation (that is, once pregnant, you withdrew consent). What it does to the body is grievous harm (imagine if a man did to you what a fetus did - 9 months of body mutilation). You may kill a fetus for what it does because there is no other way to stop its serious crime against your body. Aaah...I can hear it now. The screams of my pro-life classmates making the infamous "THAT'S MURDER!" or "OMG! IT'S AGAINST GOD!" But it'll be fun. xd Quote: One pro-life Argument: The fetus is a human person with all the rights as any other person, and therefore to kill it without justification is murder. Do not cite the legal definition of murder because that is a strawman. The argument is not "it is currently the crime of murder" but, "because a fetus is a person killing it ought to be considered the equivalent of murder." Cite again number 3 - no person, fetus or not, can use your body and use of lethal force is acceptable. It doesn't matter if it is a baby, your rights cannot be removed without classifying women as second class with fewer rights than men and non-pregnant women. Thanks! You've been very helpful! 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:42 pm
Ask them this: "If God gave us free will, wouldn't that make Him/Her pro-choice?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:10 pm
PhaedraMcSpiffy Ask them this: "If God gave us free will, wouldn't that make Him/Her pro-choice?"
I propose that, instead, YamiYumes rock on her heels and say, "Well, if this country were a theooooocraaaaaacy..." or blink innocently and ask, "Which god?" The smartass approach to debate!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:14 pm
S. Shark PhaedraMcSpiffy Ask them this: "If God gave us free will, wouldn't that make Him/Her pro-choice?"
I propose that, instead, YamiYumes rock on her heels and say, "Well, if this country were a theooooocraaaaaacy..." or blink innocently and ask, "Which god?" The smartass approach to debate!Well, I AM a smartass, and I'm not Christian so I could pull that one and then be like, "Oh...that one? I thought you were talking about mine. Sorry! sweatdrop "
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:51 pm
I'd say the adoption argument is one of the best to refute. "So many lifers claim that, "oh, if only you give birth, there'll be a family willing to adopt it, you'll give the baby a good life you might not have been able to provide, etc.etc.etc." But really, what are the chances of that? 500,000 children in the US alone that need to be adopted. Where are these people, why aren't they adopting?" Every new child we pump into the system lowers the chances of adoption for another child that's already been there for years. We need to take care of the children that already exist." http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends.htmThat's a link on how many children need to be adopted- a government link, no less, and recent. BD is a good argument for all the rest. Can you tell I've already done this before? xD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:47 am
Reinna, the problem I see with the adoption argument is that it is so obviously a fallacy. It's not quite a strawman. It's not quite a non-sequiter (sp?). But it is clearly not an abortion argument to begin with and as such pro-lifers shouldn't even bring it into the debate.
The status of the adoption system has what to do with abortion?
Adoption does not address an unwanted pregnancy.
The state of the adoption system does not hold any bearing on whether or not a woman gets pregnant (intentionally or accidentally) or whether or not she should carry to term... at least no more than the state of the school systems, or the state of the local playground, or the state of the local phone service.
The state of the adoption system has no impact on the personhood of the fetus.
The state of the adoption system has no impact on the bodily rights of women (For example, it makes no sense to say: because the adoption system is a flourishing example of human compassion women should not be allowed to have kidney transplants. In the same way adoption doesn't have any impact on whether a woman has the right to any surgery, including abortion).
Appealing to adoption is, perhaps, one of the most non-sensical fallacies pro-lifers use... because "she could just put it up for adoption" in no way address any of the relevant issues in abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:46 pm
And here's an update...
I gave the speech this past Wednesday. Funnily enough, the Pro-life group went before me...so naturally, I was smirking all the while because every single point they made, I had incorporated it into my own presentation and shot it down.
Buuut....the bad thing was that I damn near got lynched by the rest of my (female) classmates. They were crying the usual religion or "It's MURDER!!11!!" bull...
But yeah. That was about it. >3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:49 pm
Talon-chan Reinna, the problem I see with the adoption argument is that it is so obviously a fallacy. It's not quite a strawman. It's not quite a non-sequiter (sp?). But it is clearly not an abortion argument to begin with and as such pro-lifers shouldn't even bring it into the debate. The status of the adoption system has what to do with abortion? Adoption does not address an unwanted pregnancy. The state of the adoption system does not hold any bearing on whether or not a woman gets pregnant (intentionally or accidentally) or whether or not she should carry to term... at least no more than the state of the school systems, or the state of the local playground, or the state of the local phone service. The state of the adoption system has no impact on the personhood of the fetus. The state of the adoption system has no impact on the bodily rights of women (For example, it makes no sense to say: because the adoption system is a flourishing example of human compassion women should not be allowed to have kidney transplants. In the same way adoption doesn't have any impact on whether a woman has the right to any surgery, including abortion). Appealing to adoption is, perhaps, one of the most non-sensical fallacies pro-lifers use... because "she could just put it up for adoption" in no way address any of the relevant issues in abortion. That would count as a red herring once you put it that way, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
![CAPTAIN Plixy[Stix]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/9c/d6/38b5ddfa1d69c_flip.png?t=1246326560_6.00_11)
