Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion

Its hard to see where you could prove it was "wrong". If you mean that it would not be relevant to draw criteria from, or that he used the criteria incorrectly, then you would certainly have a good argument.That said, I am not sure that would fully do the trick in defeating his entire essay. He used that in order to build the piece but if I remember right it was not completely essential to his conclusion... important, but not enough to wipe the whole thing out.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Ugh, you still don't seem to get it. Read carefully: pointing out all the holes in a position is just fine, in fact that is terrific. Absolutely NOBODY had an issue with you trying to point out, or poke, holes in his essay.The problem was that you were pointing at things that were not even problems, or were only problems if he was using them the way you thought he was (which he wasn't). That latter issue is called a strawman fallacy. Even if you were right in your argument, it didn't effect his essay because what you were arguing against was not his actual position.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Well, thats what I was doing until you started calling it a strawman.Listen you just can't justify using the legal death act to determine whether a gestaional being is dead or not, the 2 do not relate, and it even says in the legal death act's full definition the purpose of it was not for abortions.If I go down the list of things he uses to set up his point, and we take them out one by one, because they really don't relate to the over all picture, then what is he left with?

About the only mistake I made was thinking that he was talking about otherwise healthy beings, which I am still not sure if that was his goal or not.My concern is once we set up a legal definition of personhood, it then further justifies what I already believe to be a horrible thing. Ripping otherwise healthy humans in development out of their wombs.

slowly now ...you said there were "numerous holes" in the argument, and then attacked one point.your attack was not backed by evidence or anything other than your opinion.your attack was refuted by evidence.you have not even mentioned any other "holes" in the argument, thus leaving one with a logical conclusion that they are unimportant.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

sadly that says more than I think you intended. I have had several disagreements with Rhain, but have never been able to fault his logic, and I would like to see explained how you could be "more than logical" in any way shape or form ...enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

the womb does not belong to the fetus.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You are right. Of course that's not what he was doing. This is the mistake you are repeatedly making. It is called a strawman.When he first detailed his argument (in a past thread) it appeared he was doing that exact thing and I attacked it then. Since then he has changed his argument. Though I agree it could be misread that way, which you may have seen me explain to him in this thread, that was not his purpose in using the legal def of death.Perhaps the most important thing for you to do is reread the argument until you understand exactly what he was using that def to do.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

So what you are saying is that because you already have a position X, you will not entertain any arguments which will possibly threaten your ability to continue holding X?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

My logic is fine, it's my comprehension of some things that might be screwd up. I admit my faults.
But that happens with all of us to a degree.
Logic is a mathematical process, and math I am pretty good at. I use it everyday for my work. I even figured out Trig. on my own without a book or training, from the need of necessity. Of course with training I could be better, there's always room to learn.I have proven rhains logic wrong on a few occasions, and his way of arguing a point is by taking you way off the beaten path.Hid logic goes like this, If I say that Jesus is the Jew's Messiah, that means I am calling all Jews idiots. There is next to no logic in that kind of statement, and does nothing for the debate.

Go read my first reply.

Why not?
Why should we think that way? It is necessary for it's survival and it is a natural course of life.Unlike a person who is dead and on life support, they will never be born again.

By my reply, you can see that I did. It goes in the opposite direction from what I believe.I have question myself many times on this issue. Having been rasied liberal, I can afford that.

Excellent, I knew there was at least one of you here.I'm not sure the rat will accept your analysis of his non-argument, though.He's gone into belligerant mode.

quote:

---

Yea, maybe they shouldn't screw around then.

---

What about the people who's birth control failed?What about married people who get pregnant by accident?What about people who want to get pregnant but once they do, their life circumstances drastically change for the worse?

quote:

---

So having said that which will piss a lot of people off. Let's see some numbers. How many woman actually die during perfectly normal pregnacies, where there was no apparent risk?

---

There are no pregnancies with "no apparent risk", riverrat. The ALL increase the risk to a woman's health.ALL of them.That is my point.

quote:

---

The other number I'd like to see is the percentage of reasons that women get abortions.

---

Why is that any of your business, and why does it matter?

quote:

---

But somehow the following fictional story based on what your saying doesn't seem right to me:

​

Doctor Abortor: Hi there Ms.Jones, you would like an abortion today?

​

Ms.Jones: Why yes I would, I got pregnant by accident
(lol), and I really don't mind raising kids, but I just don't want to risk all the things that go along with pregnacy. So go ahead and rip it out, because there is no risk in that.

---

Thanks for the insight into the warped fantasy world you anti-abortion people have to live in in order to feel so self righteous.Didn't you mention that a woman you were with years ago had an abortion?Maybe you should show her that little story you wrote and ask her if that was pretty much what she said when she went for her abortion.