"And here, I thought I'd actually get some kind of critique based on reason. Instead I get the whining of a pro-lifer who disagrees with my view. LOL"
[...]
"I'm not a pro-lifer"
[...]
"I wouldn't pass judgement on her if she did decide to have an abortion."
[...]
"This is HER decision to make."
Do pro-lifers typically advocate allowing women to choose whether or not they should have an abortion? Because I always thought those were characteristics of someone who was in favour or pro-choice... Tell me, were you legitimately confused with regards to my stance or were you merely being disingenuous and think that framing me as a pro-lifer would somehow help your argument?
"why argue with me?"
I understood the point, and I agree with it. What you failed to understand is that the similarities between a sperm/zygote and a virus are too slim for your analogy to be apt. A virus is not a living creature. A virus will not grow into a sapient being. Most people would not have moral qualms with destroying a virus, whereas many would (and do) with a zygote. These are all things your analogy fails to take into account, and hence why it is a poor analogy.
"Probably one of your stupidest statements so far. You present me with another hypothetical, then tell me to stick to reality. lol"
Once again, you argue against a misinterpretation. I was not using nebulous hypothetical scenarios to construct an argument, as you have done, I was demonstrating WHY they are not a good way to construct an argument. Of course, had you actually quoted me fully rather than cherry-picking, that would have been apparent.
"Actually statistically a person who has a bad life is more likely to become a rapist/serial killer than another Einstein. So in fact reality is on my side not yours."
So you have somehow managed to definitively determine that this child will have a bad life, and thus, statistics show that you are more likely correct? Would you care to explain how you managed to do that?
"Obviously it's her decision, which is why I told him to try to convince her to abort and leave her if she doesn't."
Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding here. What I believe the correct thing to do, as I stated, is "to get her to consider all the factors at play here [so that she may make an informed decision]" Would you agree with this? You said "Do everything in your power to make her have the abortion." I would assume that entails the above, but would you advocate going beyond that? If so, in what way?
"What is truly disgusting is you trying to force her to keep a child that resulted from non-consensual sex, ie-rape. So you're supporting the rapist's actions by forcing her to keep the baby, you're the evil one here, you rapist lover."
Would you like to point out precisely where I did any of those things you mentioned? Or are you going to stick to making stuff up and resorting to childish name-calling?
"You have a very sick and demented idea of what constitutes a family. Next thing you'll be telling us is that she has no choice but to marry the rapist, since he's part of the family too-is he not the father by rape, does he not have rights? Mind you, this is what the psychotic Islamic states do to women-congrats, you're as fucked up as they are."
Since you seem to be well-informed with regards to my ideas of family based on one post, would you care to explain in detail what they are and show why they are wrong? (Oh, and by the way: When arguing against someone who claims you have been making slippery slope arguments, try not to include that very fallacy in your rebuttal. Just trust me on this one.)
"Actually it is."
Explain. Saying it is so does not make it so.
"This isn't like moving the furniture around the house. Having a baby is gigantic, life-changing decision. It's a whole other ball-game when that baby was forced on you and no you don't have to carry the baby of a rapist around, just because it happens to be in your body."
I agree 100%.
What seems to be the core of our disagreement in general is that even though we are apparently both essentially pro-choice, our interpretation of what that means exactly is different. My stance is that in a case like this, the victim has the choice to decide whether or not she should carry the baby to term. It is her decision to make, and no one else's and forcing her to do something she doesn't want to (with regards to having an abortion) is immoral. Your stance, and please (and I mean this sincerely), correct me if I am wrong, is that in a case like this, the victim should have an abortion, regardless of her personal feelings on the matter, because that is what you feel you would do in that situation, and that those close to her should do everything in their power to make her think the way you do. The problem I have with this is that you are not really giving her full freedom to choose here. In theory, she has a choice. But if she makes the "wrong" choice (wrong, in this case being "the choice lufa doesn't agree with"), she should be shunned and ridiculed. Thus, if she feels differently than you, she is being unfairly coerced into making a decision that she doesn't agree with to avoid the negative consequences she is being threatened with.
Lastly, I don't care if you were taught that it was proper to use strawmen, personal attacks and name-calling in an argument when you were being taught philosophy, but I would repectfully ask that you try to restrain yourself from doing those things in the future with me. I feel that they add nothing constructive to the argument at hand and only serve to distract from the issues.
If your girlfriend got raped, what would you do in this situation?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
"And here, I thought I'd actually get some kind of critique based on reason. Instead I get the whining of a pro-lifer who disagrees with my view. LOL"
[...]
"I'm not a pro-lifer"
[...]
"I wouldn't pass judgement on her if she did decide to have an abortion."
[...]
"This is HER decision to make."
Do pro-lifers typically advocate allowing women to choose whether or not they should have an abortion? Because I always thought those were characteristics of someone who was in favour or pro-choice... Tell me, were you legitimately confused with regards to my stance or were you merely being disingenuous and think that framing me as a pro-lifer would somehow help your argument?
"why argue with me?"
I understood the point, and I agree with it. What you failed to understand is that the similarities between a sperm/zygote and a virus are too slim for your analogy to be apt. A virus is not a living creature. A virus will not grow into a sapient being. Most people would not have moral qualms with destroying a virus, whereas many would (and do) with a zygote. These are all things your analogy fails to take into account, and hence why it is a poor analogy.
"Probably one of your stupidest statements so far. You present me with another hypothetical, then tell me to stick to reality. lol"
Once again, you argue against a misinterpretation. I was not using nebulous hypothetical scenarios to construct an argument, as you have done, I was demonstrating WHY they are not a good way to construct an argument. Of course, had you actually quoted me fully rather than cherry-picking, that would have been apparent.
"Actually statistically a person who has a bad life is more likely to become a rapist/serial killer than another Einstein. So in fact reality is on my side not yours."
So you have somehow managed to definitively determine that this child will have a bad life, and thus, statistics show that you are more likely correct? Would you care to explain how you managed to do that?
"Obviously it's her decision, which is why I told him to try to convince her to abort and leave her if she doesn't."
Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding here. What I believe the correct thing to do, as I stated, is "to get her to consider all the factors at play here [so that she may make an informed decision]" Would you agree with this? You said "Do everything in your power to make her have the abortion." I would assume that entails the above, but would you advocate going beyond that? If so, in what way?
"What is truly disgusting is you trying to force her to keep a child that resulted from non-consensual sex, ie-rape. So you're supporting the rapist's actions by forcing her to keep the baby, you're the evil one here, you rapist lover."
Would you like to point out precisely where I did any of those things you mentioned? Or are you going to stick to making stuff up and resorting to childish name-calling?
"You have a very sick and demented idea of what constitutes a family. Next thing you'll be telling us is that she has no choice but to marry the rapist, since he's part of the family too-is he not the father by rape, does he not have rights? Mind you, this is what the psychotic Islamic states do to women-congrats, you're as fucked up as they are."
Since you seem to be well-informed with regards to my ideas of family based on one post, would you care to explain in detail what they are and show why they are wrong? (Oh, and by the way: When arguing against someone who claims you have been making slippery slope arguments, try not to include that very fallacy in your rebuttal. Just trust me on this one.)
"Actually it is."
Explain. Saying it is so does not make it so.
"This isn't like moving the furniture around the house. Having a baby is gigantic, life-changing decision. It's a whole other ball-game when that baby was forced on you and no you don't have to carry the baby of a rapist around, just because it happens to be in your body."
I agree 100%.
What seems to be the core of our disagreement in general is that even though we are apparently both essentially pro-choice, our interpretation of what that means exactly is different. My stance is that in a case like this, the victim has the choice to decide whether or not she should carry the baby to term. It is her decision to make, and no one else's and forcing her to do something she doesn't want to (with regards to having an abortion) is immoral. Your stance, and please (and I mean this sincerely), correct me if I am wrong, is that in a case like this, the victim should have an abortion, regardless of her personal feelings on the matter, because that is what you feel you would do in that situation, and that those close to her should do everything in their power to make her think the way you do. The problem I have with this is that you are not really giving her full freedom to choose here. In theory, she has a choice. But if she makes the "wrong" choice (wrong, in this case being "the choice lufa doesn't agree with"), she should be shunned and ridiculed. Thus, if she feels differently than you, she is being unfairly coerced into making a decision that she doesn't agree with to avoid the negative consequences she is being threatened with.
Lastly, I don't care if you were taught that it was proper to use strawmen, personal attacks and name-calling in an argument when you were being taught philosophy, but I would repectfully ask that you try to restrain yourself from doing those things in the future with me. I feel that they add nothing constructive to the argument at hand and only serve to distract from the issues.
--
lufa
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
I neither have the time, patience or interest to continue to straighten you out.
Continue holding on to your weird ideas, I'm sure you'll drive any man you're with to insanity and want to run away screaming from you.