It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Durangout said:

What about the “body autonomy” of the baby that was just dismembered?

Did you listen to it? She wanted her baby but chose abortion to spare her child additional suffering. Since there was no amniotic fluid, baby Grace was being crushed continuously, and she lacked several vital organs. Her mom made that choice in the interests of her child.

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What percentage of them are women?

What percentage of them are Prophets, Seers, and Revelators?

[smac97]

16 hours ago, Duncan said:

are you talking about the crazy yanks who value guns and a piece of legal paper more than lives of their fellow man?

Fallacy of false dilemma:

Quote

False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are given as the only possible options when, in reality, there are more.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Did you listen to it? She wanted her baby but chose abortion to spare her child additional suffering. Since there was no amniotic fluid, baby Grace was being crushed continuously, and she lacked several vital organs. Her mom made that choice in the interests of her child.

I listened, and hopefully others as well, definitely needed. It's these cases and many more that need to be allowed for abortion. Abortion, the word, has a stigma. Maybe we need varied titles and be reasonable and families need to have freedoms. But I understand the controversy over it as well. 

Edited July 3, 2022 by Tacenda

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Duncan said:

if you are so concerned about "human life issue" shouldn't you concerned about the seemingly unending mass shootings in the US today? why stop at abortion for your concerns. Your argument holds no water if you only care about in utero yankees but care for nothing about what happens to them when they are born

Fallacy of Relative Privation:

Quote

Fallacy of relative privation (also known as "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as") – dismissing an argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be more important problems. First World problems are a subset of this fallacy.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

Just now, smac97 said:

Fallacy of false dilemma:

Thanks,

-Smac

So tell me, what is your country doing to curb the tide on gun deaths? You seem to care about abortion but it ambivalent towards killing people already here.  Are you lacking political will or incompetent or something to figure it out? The hypocrisy is staggering

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

So tell me, what is your country doing to curb the tide on gun deaths? You seem to care about abortion but it ambivalent towards killing people already here.  Are you lacking political will or incompetent or something to figure it out? The hypocrisy is staggering

And our country needs to help families. Canada seems to be doing a good job, but I'm sure someone will spout otherwise. 

Way too many guns, for sure. Killings are everywhere, and I feel like I live in the wild west sometimes. The other day a child killed their sibling and this is one of many, when finding a gun laying around.

[Duncan]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Fallacy of Relative Privation:

Thanks,

-Smac

explain how you think I did that

Edited July 3, 2022 by Duncan

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And our country needs to help families. Canada seems to be doing a good job, but I'm sure someone will spout otherwise. 

Way too many guns, for sure. Killings are everywhere, and I feel like I live in the wild west sometimes. The other day a child killed their sibling and this is one of many, when finding a gun laying around.

we have a family moving here from the US! we have extra stuff for them!

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No, I think for many women, the choice to chose abortion is a choice FOR life.

"A choice FOR life" that necessarily entails the elective taking of a life without the person's consent?

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

They're the ones who will know when it needs to be made.

There is an incongruity in your position, namely, that you resent the State having some measure of control over a person's body (quite an understandable concern, really), yet you have no qualms with a mother having control over her unborn baby's life.  

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Also I'll just add that there seems to be such little awareness of how nature works: half or nearly half of all fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted...

Fallacy of red herring:

Quote

A red herring fallacy, one of the main subtypes of fallacies of relevance, is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. This includes any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.

Red herring – introducing a second argument in response to the first argument that is irrelevant and draws attention away from the original topic (e.g.: saying “If you want to complain about the dishes I leave in the sink, what about the dirty clothes you leave in the bathroom?”).

And/or Ignoratio elenchi :

Quote

Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.

Also possibly the Chewbacca Defense (a new one to me) :

Quote

In a jury trial, a Chewbacca defense is a legal strategy in which a criminal defense lawyer tries to confuse the jury rather than refute the case of the prosecutor. It is an intentional distraction or obfuscation.

As a Chewbacca defense distracts and misleads, it is an example of a red herring. It is also an example of an irrelevant conclusion, a type of informal fallacy in which one making an argument fails to address the issue in question.

Arguing something like "You cannot oppose elective abortion of a pregnancy because some pregnancies spontaneously abort" is akin to arguing "You cannot oppose murder because some people die of cancer."

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What is essential to remember is that every pregnancy is a risk

Further "essential{s} to remember" include:

• Pregnancy is a known and foreseeable risk associated with engaging in sexual activity, such that absent force, coercion, deceit, mental defect, or substantial ignorance, a woman has the capacity to either A) avoid or B) accept that risk.
• We as a society can and ought to have discussion and debate about the personhood of the child.
• We as a society also can and ought to have discussion and debate about society's interest in protecting the rights attendant to such personhood.
• It may well be that because pregnancy is a known and foreseeable risk associated with engaging in sexual activity, voluntary assumption of that risk carries with it some measure of a personal responsibility, and even a legal obligation, to endure the consequences of having assumed that risk.
• There may well be tension between the rights of the mother and the rights of the child.  Assuming the latter exists, society needs to develop ways to address that tension.

I don't think you are addressing these points (in this thread, anyway).

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

and we shouldn't force women to continue the risk if they don't want to, or even if they change their minds.

This is not an argument.  It is a conclusion.  It is an assertion, and not one that is self-evidently valid.

Here's my counterpoint: Absent force, coercion, deceit, mental defect, or substantial ignorance, avoiding or accepting the risks associated with and arising from participating in sexual behavior is within the capacity of women.  I also think that because pregnancy is a known and foreseeable risk associated with engaging in sexual activity, voluntary assumption of that risk carries with it some measure of a personal responsibility, and even a legal obligation, to endure the consequences of having assumed that risk.  I also think that the State can, within constitutional parameters, identify the scope and breadth of that obligation.  The basis of the State's interest is . . . protecting the actual or nascent personhood of the child.

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

People often compare pregnancy to organ donation:

Not the best comparison, that.  A kidney does not have personhood.  And outside of China, organ donations do not require the affirmative and calculated taking of a life for that purpose.

Unfortunately, there may well be a comparison to be made between elective abortions and China-style organ harvesting.  Both involve the elective killing of Person X for the benefit of Person Y.  Both involve Person X's lack of consent.  Both involve financial incentives arising from elective killing.  Both involve the State failing to protect the personhood of Person X.

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

If you agreed to give your brother your second kidney to save his life, you could opt out up until the moment they put you under anesthesia.

But not after.  Once the kidney is in his body, then his rights come into play.  Right?  Right?

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No one can force you to risk your life to save him, even if that means he will die. 

But the State can stop you from taking affirmative steps from forcibly taking your kidney back.  Right?

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

At it's simplest, women who abort are choosing life--their own life--

Fallacy of False Dilemma:

Quote

False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are given as the only possible options when, in reality, there are more.

The vast majority of abortions are elective.  They are not about "choosing" one life at the expense of the other.

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

and it's not our choice to make them do otherwise.

Fallacy of "Proof by Assertion":

Quote

• Proof by assertion – a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction; sometimes confused with argument from repetition (argumentum ad infinitum, argumentum ad nauseam).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 3, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

 

Quote

if you are so concerned about "human life issue" shouldn't you concerned about the seemingly unending mass shootings in the US today? why stop at abortion for your concerns. Your argument holds no water if you only care about in utero yankees but care for nothing about what happens to them when they are born

Fallacy of Relative Privation:

Fallacy of relative privation (also known as "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as") – dismissing an argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be more important problems. First World problems are a subset of this fallacy.

 

explain how you think I did that

You said: "Your argument holds no water if you only care about in utero yankees but care for nothing about what happens to them when they are born."

You are "dismissing an argument or complaint" (re: elective abortion) "due to what are perceived to be more important problems" ("unending mass shootings in the US"). 

I also think you committed the Strawman fallacy:

Quote

Straw man fallacy – misrepresenting an opponent's argument by broadening or narrowing the scope of a premise and/or refuting a weaker version of their argument (e.g.: If someone says that killing animals is wrong because we are animals too saying "It is not true that humans have no moral worth" would be a strawman since they have not asserted that humans have no moral worth, rather that the moral worth of animals and humans are equivalent.

Again, you said: "Your argument holds no water if you only care about in utero yankees but care for nothing about what happens to them when they are born"

Teddy can, of course, speak for himself.  But I'm reasonably confident that he has never said he "care{s} nothing about" victims of school shootings, or that he "care{s} nothing about" children after they are born.  If you disagree, then please provide a citation to where he has made such statements. 

But if, as I suspect, you cannot provide such a citation, then you are imputing statements/beliefs onto him that he has neither said nor admitted.  You are therefore "misrepresenting an opponent's argument by broadening or narrowing the scope of a premise and/or refuting a weaker version of their argument."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

 

Quote

are you talking about the crazy yanks who value guns and a piece of legal paper more than lives of their fellow man?

Fallacy of false dilemma:

 

Quote

False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are given as the only possible options when, in reality, there are more.

 

So tell me,

I note that you are not addressing my point about you using the "false dilemma" fallacy.

40 minutes ago, Duncan said:

what is your country doing to curb the tide on gun deaths?

Red herring fallacy:

Quote

Red herring – introducing a second argument in response to the first argument that is irrelevant and draws attention away from the original topic.

And/or "false equivalence" fallacy:

Quote

False equivalence – describing two or more statements as virtually equal when they are not.

You cannot resolve the error in reasoning arising from using one logical fallacy by . . . resorting to other fallacies.

40 minutes ago, Duncan said:

You seem to care about abortion but it ambivalent towards killing people already here. 

Strawman fallacy:

Quote

Straw man fallacy – misrepresenting an opponent's argument by broadening or narrowing the scope of a premise and/or refuting a weaker version of their argumen

Also Red Herring fallacy:

Quote

Red herring – introducing a second argument in response to the first argument that is irrelevant and draws attention away from the original topic (e.g.: saying “If you want to complain about the dishes I leave in the sink, what about the dirty clothes you leave in the bathroom?”).

Nothing I have said has expressed any ambivalence about victims of school shootings.

40 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Are you lacking political will or incompetent or something to figure it out? The hypocrisy is staggering

Ad hominem fallacy:

Quote

Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument. (Note that "ad hominem" can also refer to the dialectical strategy of arguing on the basis of the opponent's own commitments. This type of ad hominem is not a fallacy.)

And/or circumstantial ad hominem (same link) :

Quote

Circumstantial ad hominem – stating that the arguer's personal situation or perceived benefit from advancing a conclusion means that their conclusion is wrong.

And/or Poisoning the Well:

Quote

Poisoning the well – a subtype of ad hominem presenting adverse information about a target person with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.

And/or Appeal to Motive:

Quote

Appeal to motive – dismissing an idea by questioning the motives of its proposer.

And/or Appeal to Spite:

Quote

Appeal to spite – generating bitterness or hostility in the listener toward an opponent in an argument.

A few more, but you get the idea.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Peacefully]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

only those who have been born are those we don't care about. The US lost its moral stance after their total inaction after Sandy Hook

We lost our soul at Uvalde:( 

[Duncan]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I note that you are not addressing my point about you using the "false dilemma" fallacy.

Red herring fallacy:

And/or "false equivalence" fallacy:

You cannot resolve the error in reasoning arising from using one logical fallacy by . . . resorting to other fallacies.

Strawman fallacy:

Also Red Herring fallacy:

Nothing I have said has expressed any ambivalence about victims of school shootings.

Ad hominem fallacy:

And/or circumstantial ad hominem (same link) :

And/or Poisoning the Well:

And/or Appeal to Motive:

And/or Appeal to Spite:

A few more, but you get the idea.

Thanks,

-Smac

can you give me twenty minutes to respond? I do have a life. I did find this piece of lunacy from teddyaware though from Sept. 5 2021

“I’ll never forget that strange Sunday morning in October of 1988 when a prophet of God announced to the world that Moroni’s terrifying prophecy of a gigantic secret combination that would be set up by the devil in the last days to destroy the freedom of the entire world was being fulfilled even as he spoke. I was astonished because I looked around and realized that, with the exception of Yours Truly, not a single soul in the entire congregation seemed to realize that a most momentous and sobering prophetic pronouncement had just been made. It was then that I realized Moroni’s hope that the general membership of the Church would awaken to a sense of their awful situation in time to do something about this devilish business would not be realized.”

if you don't mind I am off to help that US family with some stuff

 

Edited July 3, 2022 by Duncan

[Calm]

9 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Canadian loyalist to the British Crown would wish that the American Founding Fathers and patriots had been disarmed, and therefore incapable of mounting a successful military uprising against tyranny, so that the landmass of the present-day United States would still be under British control.

You don’t appear to have a clue about how Canadians view Britain or likely America these days.  This cracks me up.

[Tacenda]

Very comical, how many would do it for a free hot dog. But hopefully some will bite, and I would wish it was covered by their insurance. 

https://www.fox13now.com/news/national/hot-dog-business-offers-free-milkshakes-to-men-who-get-a-vasectomy?fbclid=IwAR3oR-QClBK54aUtFFGRu9usSH4i8hXWYB2z5Z0zNtNYdP9p1a8b6hePOy8

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

can you give me twenty minutes to respond? I do have a life. I did find this piece of lunacy from teddyaware though from Sept. 5 2021

“I’ll never forget that strange Sunday morning in October of 1988 when a prophet of God announced to the world that Moroni’s terrifying prophecy of a gigantic secret combination that would be set up by the devil in the last days to destroy the freedom of the entire world was being fulfilled even as he spoke. I was astonished because I looked around and realized that, with the exception of Yours Truly, not a single soul in the entire congregation seemed to realize that a most momentous and sobering prophetic pronouncement had just been made. It was then that I realized Moroni’s hope that the general membership of the Church would awaken to a sense of their awful situation in time to do something about this devilish business would not be realized.”

if you don't mind I am off to help that US family with some stuff

 

Still not addressing the fallacies you are using.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Still not addressing the fallacies you are using.

Thanks,

-Smac

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

have a nice day

[Amulek]

On 7/3/2022 at 6:11 AM, Meadowchik said:

Sigh. 

Dodge. 

 

On 7/3/2022 at 6:11 AM, Meadowchik said:

Listen to this and get back to me:

https://pca.st/episode/5ea47f0c-7f8d-49c3-aa3a-bfe4b8021df3?t=75

Why should I listen through a thirty minute podcast instead of just having you answer a simple yes or no question?

Do you believe that abortion should be available on demand at any stage of pregnancy?

A small minority of people believe the answer to that question ought to be yes. The overwhelming majority of people disagree. I'm just trying to see which camp you fall into. Certainly you can provide that information without me having to waste a half hour of my life listening to some stupid podcast.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Quote

Still not addressing the fallacies you are using.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

have a nice day

I have not committed this fallacy.  Take a look:

Quote

It has the general argument form:

If P, then Q.

P is a fallacious argument.

Therefore, Q is false.

Thus, it is a special case of denying the antecedent where the antecedent, rather than being a proposition that is false, is an entire argument that is fallacious. A fallacious argument, just as with a false antecedent, can still have a consequent that happens to be true. The fallacy is in concluding the consequent of a fallacious argument has to be false.

I have not said "Q is false," therefore I have not denied the antecedent in a fallacious way.  I have not said that your pro-abortion stance "has to be false" because of your use of P.  I have only commented on your use  of P (over and over now).

And you are still not addressing the fallacies you are using.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 4, 2022 by smac97

[Duncan]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have not committed this fallacy.  Take a look:

I have not said "Q is false," therefore I have not denied the antecedent in a fallacious way.  I have not said that your pro-abortion stance "has to be false" because of your use of P.  I have only commented on your use  of P (over and over now).

And you are still not addressing the fallacies you are using.

Thanks,

-Smac

It's traitor day today for you people, shouldn't you be out shooting at people or dumping tea into a harbor or something?

[Meadowchik]

42 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Dodge. 

 

Why should I listen through a thirty minute podcast instead of just having you answer a simple yes or no question?

Do you believe that abortion should be available on demand at any stage of pregnancy?

A small minority of people believe the answer to that question ought to be yes. The overwhelming majority of people disagree. I'm just trying to see which camp you fall into. Certainly you can provide that information without me having to waste a half hour of my life listening to some stupid podcast.

 

You asked a question I had already made clear. It's not your decision or anyone else's whether a woman continues a pregnancy. I was clear.

Stupid podcast, eh? How much time have you spent participating in threads debating abortion? 

How much time have you spent listening to women who've actually chosen abortion?

Hers is an actual experience, not a speculation on what it's like or how people chose it.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

It's traitor day today for you people, shouldn't you be out shooting at people or dumping tea into a harbor or something?

Red herring.

Ad hominem.

And you are still not addressing the fallacies you are using.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 4, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Why should I listen through a thirty minute podcast instead of just having you answer a simple yes or no question?

Do you believe that abortion should be available on demand at any stage of pregnancy?

She has previously affirmed this here: "{A}bortion should be available on demand, period."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

On 6/30/2022 at 10:04 PM, mtomm said:

This is what we are dealing with on the SUPREME Court of the United States. Holy hell. If that doesn't scare all of us it should. 

Clarence Thomas is very stupid or just plain evil.

Who is the "us" in "all of us"? It all depends on where one stands. Imagine, if you will, those who think opposite to you in regards to abortion, when Roe v. Wade was decided. If that didn't scare all of us, it should have.