U of C Abortion protests

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by evman150

1. Religious people are on average less intelligent than atheists.
2. Most pro-lifers are pro-life because of religious motivations.
3. Pro-life people are more likely to be religious than a random population.
4. Atheists tend to be pro-choice.
5. Atheists are this way because they lack religious motivation.
______

6. Pro-life people are on average less intelligent than pro-choice people.

Find some peer-reviewed studies to back up your points. Then, you have a point. With a weak first premise, the house of cards falls.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

This argument works both ways: why is it acceptable to kill a fetus who hasn't had a chance yet and unacceptable to kill someone who has brought only death and destruction into the world?

As someone who is on the same side of the argument as you, I find you to be doing it a disservice in this thread.

A murderer is a human. A fetus is not. QED.

And while pro-lifers will respond that a murderer isn`t human either, that just isn`t true. That is true only in the colloquial sense; the argument is not substantive and it`s only content is in its speciousness.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by evman150

On average, I`d say yes that is true, but that wasn`t the point.

False cause though. Victoria being a better school than Calgary is the real cause of why the student population is more intelligent.

If its not the point then why mention it, especially on a Calgary-based board? I am sure there are far more U of C students here than UVic. Indirectly implying someone is less intelligent than you and your peers is hardly a way to curry favour for your real point.

[peter12]

By this standard a woman's body itself is the biggest killer of all time. As much as a third of all pregnancies abort themselves for all kinds of different reasons.

Also by this standard any kind of artificial insemination is abhorrent as well since many more than a single egg is fertilized, and most will be wasted since they usually have to do it many times to get one implanted. So by this standard anyone who's had an artificially inseminated child has killed dozens if not hundreds of humans.

Natural abortion is the consequence and trade-off of being human. Medical science can only prevent this in so many ways. I would also be against artificial insemination. I don't know why these two views can't be concurrent.

This is just an appeal to emotions.. you can't take something away from someone who doesn't exist yet. Otherwise you would also have to argue against contraception since a condom takes away the chance for a life to begin.

Although some would disagree, an emotional appeal is a central part to the morality of this debate. Human life can't be measured in utilitarian terms.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Sometimes complications with pregnancy are life-threatening. If abortions are not safe and legal, pregnancy will be a death sentence for some women.

Yep. And there's no way I'd force a rape victim to carry a baby to term. I don't like abortion as a form of birth control, but we need the option most certainly for some cases.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by peter12

Life is so much more than your false duality of religious and atheist.

Dichotomy. And I`m speaking in generalizations. Use theist and nontheist if you like. Let`s not get lost in semantics.

And really, speaking of people like you is useless when arguing this stuff. Your kind make up...one percent of the population? I want to speak about the masses, not get lost in the details. That is why it is important to talk in generalizations.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by evman150

A murderer is a human. A fetus is not. QED.

And while pro-lifers will respond that a murderer isn`t human either, that just isn`t true. That is true only in the colloquial sense; the argument is not substantive and it`s only content is in its speciousness.

Wow, so human life boils down to a mathematical proof. That is truly one of the most pathetic things I have ever read.

The second part is based on such a fallacious generalization that it can't be answered.

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

...unwanted babies ...their parent(s) don't want them...

Phrases like this are horrible. It's a kid, a human being. Not some inanimate object you can throw away.

Their parents might have difficulty supporting their kid and be worried about that, but how can anyone say "Nah, I don't want a human being to live"?

[evman150]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Indirectly implying someone is less intelligent than you and your peers is hardly a way to curry favour for your real point.

Fallacy of division.

I in no way implied that!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by evman150

Dichotomy. And I`m speaking in generalizations. Use theist and nontheist if you like. Let`s not get lost in semantics.

And really, speaking of people like you is useless when arguing this stuff. Your kind make up...one percent of the population? I want to speak about the masses, not get lost in the details. That is why it is important to talk in generalizations.

Within ethical debates, there is no such thing as generalizations. In a democracy, everyone has their own view which bears weight. The wisdom of crowds means something.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by evman150

Fallacy of division.

I in no way implied that!

By basing your assumption upon a set of controversial magazine ranking of Canadian universities, you make an assumption about an entire population of students.

What field did you say you were in?

[evman150]

Originally Posted by peter12

Wow, so human life boils down to a mathematical proof. That is truly one of the most pathetic things I have ever read.

The second part is based on such a fallacious generalization that it can't be answered.

That`s not mathematical. If that`s the most pathetic thing you`ve ever read, you need to read more!

And what exactly is the fallacious generalization?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by evman150

That`s not mathematical. If that`s the most pathetic thing you`ve ever read, you need to read more!

And what exactly is the fallacious generalization?

Can you demonstrate that a fetus is not human? As stated, quod erat demonstrandum, you imply the debate is finished, like a mathematical proof it stands in such absolute terms that it cannot be discussed further.

Once again, the generalization of individuals into collectives which is then used to make assumptions to bolster an already shaky POV is fallacious.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by habernac

Yep. And there's no way I'd force a rape victim to carry a baby to term. I don't like abortion as a form of birth control, but we need the option most certainly for some cases.

Who does my friend...who does? I would think that other than the odd prostitute there are few women who consider this a valid form of birth control.
Lets face facts...rubbers fail, foam doesnt work, the birth control pill isnt 100% in preventing pregnancy, nothing is. If a woman is doing all she can to protect against pregnancy and gets pregnant she should have the right to choose what to do...noone else.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by peter12

By basing your assumption upon a set of controversial magazine ranking of Canadian universities, you make an assumption about an entire population of students.

What field did you say you were in?

Oh come on. If you`re going to doubt everything, what basis is there for discourse?

And for what it`s worth, I double major in Physics & Astronomy and Philosophy (with a focus on Ethics).

[REDVAN]

Pro-life is wrong as a blanket policy.

Pro-choice is wrong as a method of birth control.

Pro-life should be valid after a certain scientific cut-off where it has been legally decided that the fetus is a living person with a mature enough mind that it will evolve into a normal human being.

Pro-choice should be valid in all cases prior to this cut-off fetus age, particularly for rape victims, etc. Pro-choice should also be valid until the fetus gains legal status because that is the law. Until it becomes a person, it is the property of the mother and part of her body and she can do whatever she sees fit.

If a couple is considering abortion, there needs to be a reason for it other than "oops", but I think it should be a legal and morally accepted option.

I also consider this to be a relatively moderate point of view, which is what most people actually believe.

Edit: I realize I mixed up pro-life with "allow all fetuses to live no matter what" and pro-choice with "kill all babies!!" but that's tough. I'm just trying to say that the moderate view is preferred.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by evman150

Oh come on. If you`re going to doubt everything, what basis is there for discourse?

And for what it`s worth, I double major in Physics & Astronomy and Philosophy (with a focus on Ethics).

I seem to hear your voice in another thread. Skepticism is the foundation of honest discourse. The rest, we can leave to the sophists.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Who does my friend...who does? I would think that other than the odd prostitute there are few women who consider this a valid form of birth control.
Lets face facts...rubbers fail, the birth control pill isnt 100% in preventing pregnancy, nothing is. If a woman is doing all she can to protect against pregnancy and gets pregnant she should have the right to choose what to do...noone else.

It's interesting that you make that assumption. No one supporting the pro-life stance in this thread has made any reference to banning abortion or removing it as an option.

As taxpayers though, where should we spend our money? Preventative measures or abortion?

[evman150]

Originally Posted by peter12

Can you demonstrate that a fetus is not human? As stated, quod erat demonstrandum, you imply the debate is finished, like a mathematical proof it stands in such absolute terms that it cannot be discussed further.

Once again, the generalization of individuals into collectives which is then used to make assumptions to bolster an already shaky POV is fallacious.

Whether a fetus is human can be doubted. Whether a human is a human cannot be doubted, it is tautologically true.

And for what it`s worth, QED has a colloquial sense in popular use outside of math. This is what I was using, and I apologize for being ambiguous.

[MelBridgeman]

This is a matter between me and whoever i impregnant..no one else.
just saying