The abortion debate...

[Mzichi]

If you read the medical definition of abortion there is no conflation. It covers both in the umbrella of the definition.

You are digging yourself deeper. Do you suggest that the medical definitions are the same? They are only as equal in medical definitions as murder, suicide, and death are equal. The cause is very central to the differentiation. So, why would a woman be charged for having a miscarriage? Honestly, there is no way you don't see the error in this logic.

Again, how would the illegalization of abortions translate to the prosecution of women for miscarriages?

I agree. So it is incumbent on those claiming that a 1wk embryo is the same a 1wk old baby and everything inbetween.

How?

The fact that you use works like "okay" and "is it right" speak to permissibility and ethics which are moral issues.

Morality and legality are not necessarily tied. Is it illegal to jay-walk? yes. Is it immoral? I dont think it is. So you are still trying to tie this to morality. Whether the law allows it or not does not speak to the deeds morality.

You see a moral argument, where I put forth an argument on logical coherence. Your argument is predicated on the argument that laws shouldn't regulate what a woman should do or not do to a pregnancy. I simply hold the opposite position. Why is mine an argument on morality, and yours is not...

You say the woman has I quote "a right" to choose what to do to the unborn, I say the exact opposite. Don't hide behind the question of morality, where I try to show you the inescapable conclusion of your logic.

The fact that this mother has brought carried the pregnancy to term and is keeping it means she has agreed to take care of this child. She is to care for the child in her custody in the best means she is capable. Why would it be wrong to stop breastfeeding it? because it would cause that baby harm and affect its wellbeing. However, she still has the choice to stop breastfeeding this child and free herself of the burden by relinquishing that child to the state or persons who are willing to take up that charge for her.
So my question is, why should the very same choice not be available to her before the baby is there at all in the first place?

Then why not also advocate for 14-week wk abortions? Why draw the line at 12wks? The pregnancy has yet to be carried to term...

I grant you this point. Let me clarify myself for going forward with any discussion with you and @JazzMan . I do not advocate for any late term abortions when brain function is apparent and pain receptors are developed. For my line of arguement, let me say my term limit would be say 12wks (3 months).

So, brain function and pain reception give the child a right over the woman's body?

here it is you who is in error. Good Samaritan laws do not compel this. Infact it is there to protect you from civil suits in your bid to offer assistance to someone in need and you injure them.

I see the mistake here, I mean Good Samaritan Law in the context of American Law. About a fifth of the states have Good Samaritan Laws (which in the US context obligates you to help someone in peril and/or notify law enforcement.

The maxim usually falls under the "duty to help", which is unanimously (or near-unanimously) called when the peril facing another is orchestrated by your actions...

Yes as a parent you are obligated to take care of a child, feed, protect, educate them and all that good stuff. But if my child needs a kidney transplant, and I am a match, there is no legal precedent that can be issued forcing me to go to hospital to have it removed and transplanted in my kid. I would like to see any case where a similar thing has occurred.

So, basically, you are not required to provide anything more than the basics they need, by virtue of you bringing them into the world...

Even in the womb, you aren't obligated to offer say a skin graft to help the child in the womb, or even seek medical intervention to have say a prenatal surgery to help the child. These are considered extra-normal needs... just like a kidney to your child.

Do you see that?

So, there is an obligation to the child you bring into being... why then is your argument that there is absolutely no obligation to the child before 12 wks, and absolute obligation after 13 wks?

Make a logically coherent argument

You can't starve them, because they wouldn't need food hadn't you brought them into being.

 

[Burner]

You are digging yourself deeper. Do you suggest that the medical definitions are the same? They are only as equal in medical definitions as murder, suicide, and death are equal.

there is no medical definition of murder. Homicide, murder, suicide, manslaughter etc are legal definitions of a death occurrence. if there, please provide it.

hey are only as equal in medical definitions as murder, suicide, and death are equal. The cause is very central to the differentiation. So, why would a woman be charged for having a miscarriage? Honestly, there is no way you don't see the error in this logic.

the syllogism would be thus by your logic:
Premise 1: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.
Premise 2: Abortion is murder.
Premise 3: Murder is illegal
Premise 3: Miscarriage is a termination of a pregnancy i.e an abortion.
Conclusion: Therefore Miscarriage is illegal.
Is this not a direct syllogistic argument of what you are putting forth? If this argument is illogical from the premises set forth, show me?

How?

I dont know. I make no such claim. its upon the person making the claim to demonstrate it.

You see a moral argument, where I put forth an argument on logical coherence. Your argument is predicated on the argument that laws shouldn't regulate what a woman should do or not do to a pregnancy. I simply hold the opposite position. Why is mine an argument on morality, and yours is not...

You say the woman has I quote "a right" to choose what to do to the unborn, I say the exact opposite. Don't hide behind the question of morality, where I try to show you the inescapable conclusion of your logic.

my opposition to your moral argument is when you ask why is it ok for X to have done Y based on a law? And that phrasing lends to a morality line of questioning. I argue that the woman has the right to choose for herself whether her body is used by any one else.

Then why not also advocate for 14-week wk abortions? Why draw the line at 12wks? The pregnancy has yet to be carried to term...
So, brain function and pain reception give the child a right over the woman's body?

I will place a caveat here as I am not an expert at embryology, but here is my reasoning from what i have read on the subject for why it the threshold should be 12wks. Brain development and function going forward and pain receptors are beginning to develop rapidly. I would think at the very minimum, naturalistic survival instincts would be kick in for the embryo to survive. This is the line i would say a person is forming. Prior to this marker, I do not think the foetus (if it is indeed called that) is a person.
Does it give it rights over the woman's body? No I still dont believe it does. But since I am drawing the line in the sand and saying at 12weeks we have a person inside you, your window to have made a choice about carrying the pregnancy to term (except for medical emergency etc) must now be suspended.

The maxim usually falls under the "duty to help", which is unanimously (or near-unanimously) called when the peril facing another is orchestrated by your actions...

yes, this still does not require you to submit to medical procedures. It simply does not hold that you can be compelled to give blood or an organ etc.

So, basically, you are not required to provide anything more than the basics they need, by virtue of you bringing them into the world...

Even in the womb, you aren't obligated to offer say a skin graft to help the child in the womb, or even seek medical intervention to have say a prenatal surgery to help the child. These are considered extra-normal needs... just like a kidney to your child.

Yes, correct. All those things(kidney, skin, whatever) may be critical to their survival but you are not obligated to give up anything of yourself to ensure their survival. In a moral or social obligation sense, you may be. But there is no way your bodily autonomy should be violated to ensure the survival of another party.

You can't starve them, because they wouldn't need food hadn't you brought them into being.

And it the choice to not bring them into being that is being asked for. BUT NOT WITHOUT EXCEPTION. I do not believe the pro-choice side advocates for abortion at any time during the pregnancy.

 

[Mzichi]

there is no medical definition of murder. Homicide, murder, suicide, manslaughter etc are legal definitions of a death occurrence. if there, please provide it.

the syllogism would be thus by your logic:
Premise 1: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.
Premise 2: Abortion is murder.
Premise 3: Murder is illegal
Premise 3: Miscarriage is a termination of a pregnancy i.e an abortion.
Conclusion: Therefore Miscarriage is illegal.
Is this not a direct syllogistic argument of what you are putting forth? If this argument is illogical from the premises set forth, show me?


I dont know. I make no such claim. its upon the person making the claim to demonstrate it.

my opposition to your moral argument is when you ask why is it ok for X to have done Y based on a law? And that phrasing lends to a morality line of questioning. I argue that the woman has the right to choose for herself whether her body is used by any one else.

I will place a caveat here as I am not an expert at embryology, but here is my reasoning from what i have read on the subject for why it the threshold should be 12wks. Brain development and function going forward and pain receptors are beginning to develop rapidly. I would think at the very minimum, naturalistic survival instincts would be kick in for the embryo to survive. This is the line i would say a person is forming. Prior to this marker, I do not think the foetus (if it is indeed called that) is a person.
Does it give it rights over the woman's body? No I still dont believe it does. But since I am drawing the line in the sand and saying at 12weeks we have a person inside you, your window to have made a choice about carrying the pregnancy to term (except for medical emergency etc) must now be suspended.

yes, this still does not require you to submit to medical procedures. It simply does not hold that you can be compelled to give blood or an organ etc.

Yes, correct. All those things(kidney, skin, whatever) may be critical to their survival but you are not obligated to give up anything of yourself to ensure their survival. In a moral or social obligation sense, you may be. But there is no way your bodily autonomy should be violated to ensure the survival of another party.

And it the choice to not bring them into being that is being asked for. BUT NOT WITHOUT EXCEPTION. I do not believe the pro-choice side advocates for abortion at any time during the pregnancy.

The miscarriage argument is akin to suggesting that because I say dogs breathe and humans breathe dogs are humans.

Under what circumstance is abortion logically equated to abortion?

One is induced... the other an act of God.

It's either a blatant mischaracterization, or you don't understand the basic flow of logic.

The only similarity is that both end in the termination of a pregnancy.

How a woman would be charged for a miscarriage because abortions are illegal is outrightly nonsensical.

I mean in Kenya abortions are illegal, does that translate to the prosecution of women who have lost their pregnancies to miscarriages?

Don't run away from the argument by creating straw men.

Finally, your whole logic is incoherent.

In one breathe you argue that no person should be obligated to vacate bodily autonomy for the sake of another's life.

In the next breathe you say that at 12wks, the foetus is now a person, so the woman is obligated to vacate bodily autonomy for the sale of the child's life.

So, the reason why you draw a line at 12wks is in your own admission because the pregnancy is now a person.

Yes the crux of your argument for abortion is that no one should vacate their right to bodily autonomy for the sake of another person.

But at 12wks the pregnancy is a person so the woman is obligated to vacate bodily autonomy.

I would continue to illustrate the logical incoherence in your arguments, but I'll take that this suffices.

 

[Burner]

The miscarriage argument is akin to suggesting that because I say dogs breathe and humans breathe dogs are humans.

Your syllogism fails because you have created 2 distinct subsets and then equated them.
For your argument to flow in any logical sense, it would have to be:

P1. Dogs breathe air
P2. All humans are dogs
Conclusion. All Humans breathe air.
This is invalid argument because P2 is not valid. from the DEFINITION we have of DOGS and HUMANS, these are not subsets of each other.

That is why yours is illogical.
However if you say:
P.1 All animals breathe air
P.2 All dogs are animals.
P3. All humans are animals
Conclusion: All humans and dogs breathe air.
This conclusion follows from the premises as each premise is valid.

In my version one thing is a subset of the other. my argument is valid and yours is not.
You speak of a flaw in my logic but im still to see where in each of my premises that you hold an objection and how my conclusion is a non-sequitor.
What strawman did i build up to knock down?

For the sake of clarity on why i would argue saying that miscarriage is would be murder lets go through the premises step by step and tell me which premise you object to and why.

Premise 1: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.

P2: Abortions are murder.

P3. Murder is illegal.

P4. A miscarriage is a termination of a pregnancy

Conclusion. A miscarriage is illegal because it is an abortion and abortions are murder.

 

[Mzichi]

Your syllogism fails because you have created 2 distinct subsets and then equated them.
For your argument to flow in any logical sense, it would have to be:

P1. Dogs breathe air
P2. All humans are dogs
Conclusion. All Humans breathe air.
This is invalid argument because P2 is not valid. from the DEFINITION we have of DOGS and HUMANS, these are not subsets of each other.

That is why yours is illogical.
However if you say:
P.1 All animals breathe air
P.2 All dogs are animals.
P3. All humans are animals
Conclusion: All humans and dogs breathe air.
This conclusion follows from the premises as each premise is valid.

In my version one thing is a subset of the other. my argument is valid and yours is not.
You speak of a flaw in my logic but im still to see where in each of my premises that you hold an objection and how my conclusion is a non-sequitor.
What strawman did i build up to knock down?

For the sake of clarity on why i would argue saying that miscarriage is would be murder lets go through the premises step by step and tell me which premise you object to and why.

Premise 1: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.

P2: Abortions are murder.

P3. Murder is illegal.

P4. A miscarriage is a termination of a pregnancy

Conclusion. A miscarriage is illegal because it is an abortion and abortions are murder.

P1: Abortion is the willful termination of a pregnancy
P2: ...
P4: A Miscarriage is the termination of a pregnancy by an act of God

Your logic is so warped because you word your definitions to do away with the differences.
.....
P1: Bodyguards must defend the president from harm
P2: Failure to defend the president is a crime
P3: Crimes are punished
P4: Cancer harmed the president
P5: His bodyguards should be punished


This is closest to the train of thought you follow

By ignoring the implicit differences, you set up an argument no one has offered and make central...

Once the terms are properly defined, your house of cards collapses.

 

[Mzichi]

@Burner still interested to hear your justification for violating the woman's right to bodily autonomy at 12wks when the pregnancy is now a 'person'. Yet the crux of your argument is that no one should give away right to bodily autonomy to another 'person'.


In essence your argument for abortion is centered around a person's right to bodily autonomy regardless of another's need.

Yet you still hold the position that a pregnancy shouldn't be terminated once it's a person.

This is actually quite prevalent in your arguments. You either argue against straw men, or contradict your own arguments.

Very logically incoherent

 

[It's Me Scumbag]

Your syllogism fails because you have created 2 distinct subsets and then equated them.
For your argument to flow in any logical sense, it would have to be:

P1. Dogs breathe air
P2. All humans are dogs
Conclusion. All Humans breathe air.
This is invalid argument because P2 is not valid. from the DEFINITION we have of DOGS and HUMANS, these are not subsets of each other.

That is why yours is illogical.
However if you say:
P.1 All animals breathe air
P.2 All dogs are animals.
P3. All humans are animals
Conclusion: All humans and dogs breathe air.
This conclusion follows from the premises as each premise is valid.

In my version one thing is a subset of the other. my argument is valid and yours is not.
You speak of a flaw in my logic but im still to see where in each of my premises that you hold an objection and how my conclusion is a non-sequitor.
What strawman did i build up to knock down?

For the sake of clarity on why i would argue saying that miscarriage is would be murder lets go through the premises step by step and tell me which premise you object to and why.

Premise 1: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.

P2: Abortions are murder.

P3. Murder is illegal.

P4. A miscarriage is a termination of a pregnancy

Conclusion. A miscarriage is illegal because it is an abortion and abortions are murder.

So far so good until you labled miscarriage as abortion. Miscarriage is an unplanned and spontaneous. It is the body of the woman rejecting the unborn foetus. That can not be abortion.

Note that it is called a miscarriage if the the womb evacuates a foetus before the 20th week of pregnancy. If evacuation occurs after the 20th week that is known as a still birth since after 20th week,a foetus can survive outside the womb in an incubator.

Do not equat miscarriage with abortion. Abortion is planned and intentional evacuation from the womb of a live foetus.

 

[Burner]

Miscarriage is an unplanned and spontaneous. It is the body of the woman rejecting the unborn foetus.

Is the end result the termination of the pregnancy? If yes, then the arguement structure is sound and valid and must then be NECESSARILY true. Thats just how a sound logical argument is structured.

If i was to steelman your position,
What you should be arguing is the definition of abortion.

 

[Burner]

@Burner still interested to hear your justification for violating the woman's right to bodily autonomy at 12wks when the pregnancy is now a 'person'. Yet the crux of your argument is that no one should give away right to bodily autonomy to another 'person'.


In essence your argument for abortion is centered around a person's right to bodily autonomy regardless of another's need.

Yet you still hold the position that a pregnancy shouldn't be terminated once it's a person.

I dont consider the foetus/embryo a person before those 12wks based on what i believe is brain development to uniquely distinguish it.
So from this time we have a dilemma as to how not to impede the bodily autonomy of either party. Do i have a solution to it? No.
But from my position I provided an out before the dilemma arises.

 

[It's Me Scumbag]

Is the end result the termination of the pregnancy?

Of course,miscarriage terminates a pregnancy.

Can a miscarriage be called an abortion..
Are you saying a miscarriage is unlawful coz it terminates a pregnancy?

 

[Burner]

Of course,miscarriage terminates a pregnancy.

Can a miscarriage be call abortion?

If a = b
B= c then it must be true that A = C.
This is what I have laid out.

So yes, miscarriage is an abortion.
See my edited comment above about steelmaning your position

 

[Mzichi]

I dont consider the foetus/embryo a person before those 12wks based on what i believe is brain development to uniquely distinguish it.
So from this time we have a dilemma as to how not to impede the bodily autonomy of either party. Do i have a solution to it? No.
But from my position I provided an out before the dilemma arises.

But your whole argument for abortion is founded on the idea that one person shouldn't give up their bodily autonomy for the sake of another...

This new position outrightly contradicts the first position. So, which is which?

You are all over the place... incoherent

Such is the hallmark of poorly thought out ideations

 

[Mzichi]

Is the end result the termination of the pregnancy? If yes, then the arguement structure is sound and valid and must then be NECESSARILY true. Thats just how a sound logical argument is structured.

If i was to steelman your position,
What you should be arguing is the definition of abortion.

Nothing sound or logical about this... you are drawing false equivalencies.

Here is what you are saying:

a: Sex is penetration of the vagina by the penis
b: Sex is healthy and should be encouraged
c: Rape is penetration of the vagina by the penis

Conclusion... by your warped logic that vacates all considerations tothe causal and only focuses on the effect...

The conclusion to this train of thought would be rape is healthy and should be encouraged.

@It's Me Scumbag this here is the line of thought our friend considers a sound logical thought structure

Compare and contrast:
a: Abortion is termination of a pregnancy
b: abortion is murder
c: A miscarriage is the termination of a pregnancy.

I hope this paints the incoherence of your thought process adequately. I honestly don't think it's possible to dumb it down any further

 

[Burner]

Nothing sound or logical about this... you are drawing false equivalencies.

Here is what you are saying:

a: Sex is penetration of the vagina by the penis
b: Sex is healthy and should be encouraged
c: Rape is penetration of the vagina by the penis

Conclusion... by your warped logic that vacates all considerations tothe causal and only focuses on the effect...

The conclusion to this train of thought would be rape is healthy and should be encouraged.

@It's Me Scumbag this here is the line of thought our friend considers a sound logical thought structure

Compare and contrast:
a: Abortion is termination of a pregnancy
b: abortion is murder
c: A miscarriage is the termination of a pregnancy.

I hope this paints the incoherence of your thought process adequately. I honestly don't think it's possible to dumb it down any further

Your conclusion must arise from the premises you state. Rape appears nowhere in any of your premises. Hence your syllogism in illogical.
I dont think you are familiar with how a syllogistic argument is structured because you keep making the same mistake over and over. These are the basics of structuring a logical argument.
Please read through this and review your statement because it is passing you by repeatedly.

https://www.litcharts.com/literary-devices-and-terms/syllogism#:~:text=An%20example%20of%20a%20syllogism,All%20elephants%20are%20mammals%22

).

 

[Mzichi]

Your conclusion must arise from the premises you state. Rape appears nowhere in any of your premises. Hence your syllogism in illogical.
I dont think you are familiar with how a syllogistic argument is structured because you keep making the same mistake over and over. These are the basics of structuring a logical argument.
Please read through this and review your statement because it is passing you by repeatedly.

https://www.litcharts.com/literary-devices-and-terms/syllogism#:~:text=An%20example%20of%20a%20syllogism,All%20elephants%20are%20mammals%22

).

Flatter yourself, but the mistake is on your end.

Abortion is not part of your premise...

Your premise is centered around termination pregnancy, not miscarriage.

I formulated a similar argument, premised around penetration, not rape.

A: Abortion is termination of a pregnancy
A: Sex is penetration...

B: Abortion is murder
B: sex is healthy and should be encouraged

C:Miscarriage is the termination of a pregnancy
C: Rape is penetration....


I have set them side by side. I would educate you on syllogism and how to keep logic coherent in the confines of the argument, but I'll let you figure it out yourself looking at the arguments side by side.

Just point out any error in my example that isn't applicable to your miscarriage and Abortion example

Both examples are syllogic fallacies... by drawing false equivalences, you end up in a fallacy.

In what area are the two arguments different?

A, B, or C?

 

[Mzichi]

Your conclusion must arise from the premises you state. Rape appears nowhere in any of your premises. Hence your syllogism in illogical.
I dont think you are familiar with how a syllogistic argument is structured because you keep making the same mistake over and over. These are the basics of structuring a logical argument.
Please read through this and review your statement because it is passing you by repeatedly.

https://www.litcharts.com/literary-devices-and-terms/syllogism#:~:text=An%20example%20of%20a%20syllogism,All%20elephants%20are%20mammals%22

).

 

[Burner]

Flatter yourself, but the mistake is on your end.

Abortion is not part of your premise...

Your premise is centered around termination pregnancy, not miscarriage.

I formulated a similar argument, premised around penetration, not rape.

A: Abortion is termination of a pregnancy
A: Sex is penetration...

B: Abortion is murder
B: sex is healthy and should be encouraged

C:Miscarriage is the termination of a pregnancy
C: Rape is penetration....


I have set them side by side. I would educate you on syllogism and how to keep logic coherent in the confines of the argument, but I'll let you figure it out yourself looking at the arguments side by side.

Just point out any error in my example that isn't applicable to your miscarriage and Abortion example

Both examples are syllogic fallacies... by drawing false equivalences, you end up in a fallacy.

In what area are the two arguments different?

A, B, or C?

Abortion is literally my first premise!

You keep misrepresenting my argument to knock it down. The very definition of strawman.
Your premises do not include Rape in any of them. You cannot then introduce it in the conclusion. You have literally repeated the same mistake again despite it being pointed out.

 

[Mzichi]

Rape appears nowhere in any of your premises. Hence your syllogism in illogical.

This is exactly true...

Guess what?

Miscarriage doesn't occur anywhere in your premise...

And this kind of syllogical incoherence is quite prevalent in your thought process.

It's exactly what leads you to hold true two contradictory positions... i.e No one should vacate bodily autonomy for the sake of another... and at 12wks the pregnancy is a person so bodily autonomy should be vacated for their sake.

I thought you were being cheeky in your syllogism, but I am beginning to suspect the error is actually part and parcel of all your logical deductions.

 

[Mzichi]

Abortion is literally my first premise! View attachment 60768
You keep misrepresenting my argument to knock it down. The very definition of strawman.
Your premises do not include Rape in any of them. You cannot then introduce it in the conclusion. You have literally repeated the same mistake again despite it being pointed out.

Sorry, I meant miscarriage was not part of your premise...

 

[Mzichi]

I will again illustrate this side by side...

@Burner this time I copy and paste your argument and attach my equivalence to show the incoherence

Premise 1: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.
Premise 1: Sex is the penetration of the vagina by a penis

Premise 2: Abortion is murder.
Premise 2: Sex is healthy

Premise 3: Murder is illegal
Premise 3: What's healthy should be encouraged

Premise 4: Miscarriage is a termination of a pregnancy
Premise 4:Rape is the penetration of the vagina by the Penis

Here is again side by side representation of the logical fallacy.

On what Premise from 1 through 4 do the two arguments differ.

Rape isn't part of my premise, neither is miscarriage part of yours.