Gallup Poll says majority of Americans identify as pro-life

[KSig RC]

Please learn how to quote properly; embeddding your responses is a massive pain in the ass to work with. Thanks!

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 exactly the OPPOSITE of QED. Wow.

OK - that's not at all how an appeal to authority works. You are appealing to authority by declaring an incorrect predicate for a "womens' rights" argument, then twisting the law into the argument even though it really doesn't address the argument in the slightest. You are appealing to authority by saying that a fetus must deserve rights because there is currently a Federal law on the books. This is not at all true, and even if we take it at face value, the causation connection should (at the least) run in the opposite direction - and, indeed, it sets up your false dilemma: the connection between 'dependent' and 'has rights' is fallacious, and the law itself makes distinctions and indicates multiple shades of gray. You are conflating issues that are not specifically or logically connected, then whitewashing it by saying "but we're talking about the law!" I can go into more detail if you'd like, but you are certainly going beyond the actual authority of Federal laws when making your claims, and they are not objectively true as a result.


You were (technically) using (sic) properly; you were, however, highlighting his typos, likely in an effort to discredit him as a result, which is a form of ad hominem attack. Attack the ideas, not the spelling - for real.

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?

It's not minor at all - you are improperly defining terms to suit your argument, and narrowing the focus makes the terminology (and thus discussion) less accurate.

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.

You did not say this. You should have.

The legal reason? Because a fetus can never be anything but human.

This is not specifically true. An egg is not a chicken. A tadpole is not a frog. A fetus becomes a human being at a certain point - that's the entire discussion.

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.

That's fine - it's just not a sound basis for law, I don't think.

I'll expound on this for you - you want to err on the side of caution in the law? Fine - but caution cannot come at the risk of unnecessarily limiting the options and rights of the population at large without a compelling interest.

The compelling interest here, as far as I can see, is "saving lives" - which requires you to determine that a fetus is a "human life" before it is medically viable, in order to fit your views. Why would a non-viable fetus be considered a human life? The only definitions that would allow this (that I can think of) are religion-based, or spiritual - that it has a "soul" or some other imbued property from conception. Since that is a craptacular basis for law, you have to use the best-available allowed standard: viability.

Now, come up with a compelling reason to use your definition of "life" (with evidence to support it) and I'm more than willing to consider it.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

OK - that's not at all how an appeal to authority works.

You were (technically) using (sic) properly;

This is an appeal to authority from a rhetorical standpoint:http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.htm

Perhaps we are using two totally different definitions, which would explain the problems in communication. I teach rhetoric - so that's my basis for using the term. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

We were discussing the legal status of unaborted fetuses/babies/collection of cells - my point is that the federal government has already, through the passage of law, determined that there are SOME rights which an unborn fetus has. They are limited, they are still subject to interpretation, and they fall into the "grey" area you reference, but still - it's not a twisting of the idea of women's rights, or a begging of the question. The statement was made that the whatever-you-wish-to-call-the-potential human has no "rights", and I was addressing that. And, of course, just because something is legal doesn't mean it is the ultimate word on the matter - we'd hardly have the interest in the appointment of Supreme Court justices if that were the case.

A chicken egg is not a good analogy - it needs only warmth and occasional turning to become a full-fledged chicken. Although the tadpole makes for a better one, the tadpole is a living thing, right? It's not quite a full-fledged frog, but it's certainly alive, so I don't know that it is an analogy which you really wish to use. Kill a tadpole and you have undoubtly killed something. I think (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong) that the argument for abortion on demand before viability is based on the idea that you are not "killing" a being seperate from the mother. Argument by analogy is always a little lacking, I think. The best analogy would be one using a mammal, and we hit the same wall - you regard viability as the determining factor for "mammalhood", and I still regard it as a mammal from the time of implantation.

Please note that I have not referenced a soul, or any religious belief in my discussion of my personal beliefs, although they form a part in my changing from pro-choice to pro-life. If you want a strictly medical take on my beliefs, I'd have to say that for me, if it has a heart beat, it is alive. If it is alive, it has to be SOMETHING; therefore, it must be determined what it is. AOIIAngel has correctly stated that the problem comes about when we use two different definitions for "human". For me, it is a human. Therefore, as a human, it has a right to live without anyone, not even the mother, taking away its life. I realize that this simply narrows it down the point of "humanhood" to about 6 weeks - before that, yes, as I've said, we've tread into far murkier ground.
As I've said, I believe that a pregnancy which will result in the loss of the life of the mother would be a valid excuse for abortion. I am still not happy at the idea of abortion at any time, but will admit that before there is a heartbeat it is much less clear-cut.

I've changed my mind once, and while I'm pretty sure I won't go back, I do have an honest and sincere interest in the thinking behind those who hold different views.

eta - and as an aside, I'd be perfectly happy to leave the subject up to the states to determine. But that a whole 'nother political discussion.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

And, of course, just because something is legal doesn't mean it is the ultimate word on the matter - we'd hardly have the interest in the appointment of Supreme Court justices if that were the case.

I think this is a slightly different issue, and for a number of reasons, I don't think the abortion question has any place in the debate over a SCOTUS justice (despite the fact that it's one of the most talked about issues). But, again, that's a whole other issue.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

A chicken egg is not a good analogy - it needs only warmth and occasional turning to become a full-fledged chicken. Although the tadpole makes for a better one, the tadpole is a living thing, right? It's not quite a full-fledged frog, but it's certainly alive, so I don't know that it is an analogy which you really wish to use. Kill a tadpole and you have undoubtly killed something. I think (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong) that the argument for abortion on demand before viability is based on the idea that you are not "killing" a being seperate from the mother. Argument by analogy is always a little lacking, I think. The best analogy would be one using a mammal, and we hit the same wall - you regard viability as the determining factor for "mammalhood", and I still regard it as a mammal from the time of implantation.

You are taking the analogy too far.

Is killing a tadpole, frog, etc. the same thing, from a legal standpoint, the same as killing a person? You're taking the comparison too far - in fact, that's kind of a running theme in this discussion to date. I'm not using "killing" as part of the analogy at all - the argument, put more simply, is this:

1. You introduced "potential human" as an analog for "actual human"
2. You claim that a fetus is a "potential" human, thus it is a "human"
3. There are multiple examples of transformations that help to illustrate that a "potential" human is not the same as a "human".

Don't read anything more into it.

Besides this, you haven't at all addressed the key issue here, although you touch on it here:

Please note that I have not referenced a soul, or any religious belief in my discussion of my personal beliefs, although they form a part in my changing from pro-choice to pro-life.

I'm not 'accusing' you of doing this, I'm simply saying that it is basically implicit in using any definition other than medical viability (yes, even using your "heartbeat" standard below).

If you want a strictly medical take on my beliefs, I'd have to say that for me, if it has a heart beat, it is alive. If it is alive, it has to be SOMETHING; therefore, it must be determined what it is. AOIIAngel has correctly stated that the problem comes about when we use two different definitions for "human". For me, it is a human. Therefore, as a human, it has a right to live without anyone, not even the mother, taking away its life. I realize that this simply narrows it down the point of "humanhood" to about 6 weeks - before that, yes, as I've said, we've tread into far murkier ground.
As I've said, I believe that a pregnancy which will result in the loss of the life of the mother would be a valid excuse for abortion. I am still not happy at the idea of abortion at any time, but will admit that before there is a heartbeat it is much less clear-cut.

OK - you've selected an incredibly arbitrary standard, but that's no different than any other completely arbitrary standard (including medical viability). I can definitely respect the choice, even if I completely disagree with it ("It has a heartbeat! People have heartbeats! It's a person!" seems very loose to me - almost reductive - but I don't really have an issue with it if that's what you want to use).

That's one of the key problems with any real substantive abortion discussion, and that's the impasse.