[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This is ironic, because . . .



. . . this is basically a series of logical fallacies - a definite appeal to authority, at least one false dilemma, and a probable ad hominem using (sic) where completely unnecessary.

Nope. The appeal to authority is not a fallacy, because we are discussing the legal right to abortion, so appealing to federal law is not the same as appealing to the Bible, which would indeed qualify as a fallacious appeal to authority. The false dilemma is only false if you accept the idea that throughout the 40 weeks of pregnancy there is only one life - the mother's - in question. To do that would be begging the question. As you know, (sic) is used when the writer does not wish to have a mistake in a quote mistaken for one of his/her own. That is how I used it - how, pray tell, should (sic) be used? An ad hominem attack would be my attacking the poster instead of her ideas, which I don't do. QED


This is almost certainly not the fundamental question - this is because the "right of a fetus to grow and develop" is inordinately presumptive. Actually, the fundamental question is much closer to "what has rights?" or "at what point does a 'fetus' constitute a 'person' in a legal sense?"

The difference between the "right of a fetus to grow and develop" and "at what point does a 'fetus" constitute a 'person' in a legal sense" is so minor that I don't mind at all changing the question to that - so, at what point DO you think a 'fetus" constitutes a 'person" in a legal sense?



Even setting hyperbole aside, this point is much more emotional than logical. You don't "believe" the same thing - the difference is very much based upon the point you choose, it's not like you can just slide the scale all willy-nilly and claim you're on the same boat as everyone else.

Right now, it's brackishly clear that a fetus has rights at the point of viability. The AMA has said somewhere in 23-24 weeks is the point of viability - thus, abortion is restricted at that point. You obviously feel this protection should begin earlier - can you give me one good legal reason that does not rely on any personal spiritual or religious views?

I was careful to say that IF you believe there is a limit to abortion on demand THEREFORE you believe that there is a point at which the fetus is a person. If that is the case, then we ARE indeed on the same boat - we believe that there is a point before birth at which the fetus is a person with rights. I believe it is quite obvious that I'm not worried about being alone in my beliefs - but IF the above syllogism is true, then we do have at least some minor point of agreement from which we can have a productive discussion. If you don't believe that there is no point at which the fetus has rights, then you are correct. We have no beliefs in common. It is the failure of both sides to recognize possible areas of agreement that causes so much in the way of over-blown hyperbole, which does nothing to help anyone.

The legal reason? Because a fetus can never be anything but human. It cannot be a tree, or a puppy, or anything other than a human. Society believes that humans have certain rights - as Jefferson stated, life is one of those. If there is any question as to whether or not a human life is in jeopardy, I believe that the law should err on the side of conservation.