The abortion debate...

[Burner]

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

Miscarriage is in premise 4!

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: We should encourage what's healthy

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.

But Rape is in premise 4? You wrote it! Unless you dont know what a premise is?

If those are premises and your conclusion therefore is Rape is healthy, then your argument would be sound and your conclusion valid. Is it insane to have such an argument? Absolutely!

I may be wrong but what you are stuck on is thinking that a sound argument must conform to reality. That is not the case.

My entire argument about miscarriage being illegal isnt to show say thats how it should be, its to show you what logically follows if one of your premises is ill defined. In my case, that Abortion is murder and in yours that Rape is (only) the penetration of the vagina by the Penis.
I tried to point to this when i told you how to steelman your argument.

 

[Mzichi]

Miscarriage is in premise 4!



But Rape is in premise 4? You wrote it! Unless you dont know what a premise is?

If those are premises and your conclusion therefore is Rape is healthy, then your argument would be sound and your conclusion valid. Is it insane to have such an argument? Absolutely!

I may be wrong but what you are stuck on is thinking that a sound argument must conform to reality. That is not the case.

My entire argument about miscarriage being illegal isnt to show say thats how it should be, its to show you what logically follows if one of your premises is ill defined. In my case, that Abortion is murder and in yours that Rape is (only) the penetration of the vagina by the Penis.
I tried to point to this when i told you how to steelman your argument.

Finally on the same page...

The argument isn't logically sound because it draws false equivalence...

The syllogical fallacy here would be a Four Term Fallacy, or Fallacy of Equivocation.

Strictly speaking, syllogisms must have a major premise, minor premise, and a conclusion drawn from the two.

The first and probably most important unwritten rule is that the terms MUST be used equally in the syllogism.

Example:
P1: Nothing is better than Having a Lot of Money
P2: Poverty is better than Nothing
Poverty is better than Having a Lot of Money

All the 5 rules of syllogism are adhered to, but still the argument isn't considered a syllogism because the terms in the premises are not used equally i.e Nothing in P1 isn't the same as Nothing in P2

It's really getting tiring, I feel like I am no longer debating but educating you.

So, in a strict sense, your argument should be:

P1: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy
P2: Abortion is murder
Conclusion: Miscarriage is murder/ abortion

The moment you exceed two premises, you vacate the confines of a syllogism.

Why was this so structured? Because of Four Term Fallacy or the the Fallacy of Equivocation.

That's why I focus on the logical flow of your reasoning, and not the rules of syllogism (which you are obviously not aware of)

That said:

In any argument, terms MUST be used equally or we fall into what you see with the abortion and miscarriage arguments... false equivalencies

In a nutshell:
Your reasoning is neither sound nor logically coherent for the umpteenth time

 

[Mzichi]

My entire argument about miscarriage being illegal isnt to show say thats how it should be, its to show you what logically follows if one of your premises is ill defined. In my case, that Abortion is murder and in yours that Rape is (only) the penetration of the vagina by the Penis.
I tried to point to this when i told you how to steelman your argument.

No, everything I am doing is trying to show you why your reasoning doesn't logically follow...

The terms in a logical deduction MUST be used equally!!

The equivalency drawn between rape and sex, and abortion and miscarriage is false... why?

The effect in this case is inferior to the causal, because the causal is the main differentiating factor of the two

So, you can not formulate a logical deduction that circumvents the causal to draw equivalency between two events based on the effects where the the causal is a primary differentiator of the two

This is honestly getting tiring...

Formulate a syllogism (following all the rules of syllogism to defend the abortion and miscarriage equivalency). That attempt will probably reveal more to you than all my frustrated keyboarding

 

[Burner]

So, in a strict sense, your argument should be:

P1: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy
P2: Abortion is murder
Conclusion: Miscarriage is murder/ abortion

In this example there is nothing connect your conclusion to anything. Thats is where it is invalid.
Also the
I disagree. My 4th premise clearly connects it to P1. Which in turn is connected to P2 and P3. Where is the disconnect?
the four term fallacy applies when the there is no connection between the premises. I provided a connection.
The fallacy of equivocation requires that i have used a term in a ambiguous way in two premises or more. Again, Where?

 

[It's Me Scumbag]

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.

Syllogism or not:

1. Miscarriage can never be murder.
2. Miscarriage can never be illegal.

 

[Burner]

Syllogism or not:

1. Miscarriage can never be murder.
2. Miscarriage can never be illegal.

I agree.

 

[Mzichi]

In this example there is nothing connect your conclusion to anything. Thats is where it is invalid.
Also the
I disagree. My 4th premise clearly connects it to P1. Which in turn is connected to P2 and P3. Where is the disconnect?
the four term fallacy applies when the there is no connection between the premises. I provided a connection.
The fallacy of equivocation requires that i have used a term in a ambiguous way in two premises or more. Again, Where?

Syllogisms can only handle THREE TERMS

Four Term Fallacy is when a Syllogism has MORE THAN THREE TERMS...

It's no longer a syllogism.

I refuse to teach you what you can easily read up on...

 

[Mzichi]

In this example there is nothing connect your conclusion to anything. Thats is where it is invalid.
Also the
I disagree. My 4th premise clearly connects it to P1. Which in turn is connected to P2 and P3. Where is the disconnect?
the four term fallacy applies when the there is no connection between the premises. I provided a connection.
The fallacy of equivocation requires that i have used a term in a ambiguous way in two premises or more. Again, Where?

Exactly!!! Nothing connects the conclusion to the Premises.

The same is true even when you sneak in a new premise. Why? Because logic demands that terms are used equally.

The Termination of Pregnancy in a Miscarriage isn't the same as the Termination of a pregnancy in an abortion. Only the wording is the same, the reality of the two are opposites. So the terms aren't equivalent, what you have is a false equivalence fallacy.

Abortion and Miscarriage are as different as Rape and Passionate Love Making.

Blatant false equivalency never equates to sound logical deduction...

Just take on my experiment. Come up with a syllogism to equate Miscarriage to Abortion.

Read up on the 5 rules of Syllogic deduction and then formulate the syllogism. You'll honestly learn more from the frustration than from anything I can type out...

And it's a serious flaw in your reasoning. It's the same ill-advised approach that has you holding two contradictory positions on bodily autonomy and abortion

 

[Mzichi]

@Burner please read up on False Equivalence.

As a rule of thumb, a shared trait is never a basis for logical equivalence. That's one of the most basic principles of logical deduction

 

[Burner]

The Termination of Pregnancy in a Miscarriage isn't the same as the Termination of a pregnancy in an abortion. Only the wording is the same, the reality of the two are opposites. So the terms aren't equivalent, what you have is a false equivalence fallacy.

Abortion and Miscarriage are as different as Rape and Passionate Love Making.

What you are doing is reading more into the premises than what is stated. I have not stated the how of any of them occur. My definitions simply state what they are. Its not my fault that you are adding more to what has been stated and interpreting it wrong. This is why i didnt object to your rape argument. I know rape is more than a dick entering a vagina...but within the confines of your premises the conclusion must be true.

You are reading beyond the scope of what is stated.

 

[Mzichi]

What you are doing is reading more into the premises than what is stated. I have not stated the how of any of them occur. My definitions simply state what they are. Its not my fault that you are adding more to what has been stated and interpreting it wrong. This is why i didnt object to your rape argument. I know rape is more than a dick entering a vagina...but within the confines of your premises the conclusion must be true.

You are reading beyond the scope of what is stated.

Then you are missing the whole point of what constitutes a logical deduction!

You have done away with all logical coherence by suggesting a false equivalency is a sound logical progression.

It's a fundamental principle of logic...

A shared trait doesn't infer equivalence. This is literally a rule of logic.

The fact that you avoid the primary differentiating cause to draw equivalence from effect where the effect is only a shared trait and the cause a primary differentiator breaks all principals of logic