Mint Chocolate Ice Cream Reigns Supreme! & Abortion.

[Xocrates]

Mine are equally supported by science and reason and are consistent.

You have yet to demonstrate that and many people have pointed out either scientific or logical flaws in your arguments thus far, so I can't agree with you on this point (shocking I know).

They pointed out definitions that they do not agree with, but are not necessarily wrong, the reverse was also true. The only logical flaws pointed were justified and all of those cases were extensions of logic by a ludicrous amount, yours in particular. To all effects it was like using quantum physics to predict astronomic movement and then argue that since the numbers don't add the model is clearly wrong when in truth the model does not apply.

I also used the same kind of logic simply to show how ludicrous doing so was: By extension of pro-choice logic. We should allow everyone to kill/destroy anything that is inconvenient. - I'm yet to hear an answer to this one.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

They pointed out definitions that they do not agree with, but are not necessarily wrong, the reverse was also true. The only logical flaws pointed were justified and all of those cases were extensions of logic by a ludicrous amount, yours in particular. To all effects it was like using quantum physics to predict astronomic movement and then argue that since the numbers don't add the model is clearly wrong when in truth the model does not apply.

So you claim. I believe otherwise. I have tried to demonstrate the flaws in your argument to you, but you have unfortunately refused to discuss it with me. I could go back and show you where your points were contradicted or your logic shown to be flawed, but I doubt it would affect you. I'm fairly certain the debate has been thorough enough to give anyone who reads a decently clear picture of where the various parties stand in regard to the facts and to logic.

I also used the same kind of logic simply to show how ludicrous doing so was: By extension of pro-choice logic. We should allow everyone to kill/destroy anything that is inconvenient. - I'm yet to hear an answer to this one.

Well the simple answer is that it is OK as long as they are not other independent humans. We routinely kill things that are inconvenient (roaches, cancer cells, etc). Most pro-choice people believe that full human rights only extend to individuals who are biologically independent.

[Xocrates]

They pointed out definitions that they do not agree with, but are not necessarily wrong, the reverse was also true. The only logical flaws pointed were justified and all of those cases were extensions of logic by a ludicrous amount, yours in particular. To all effects it was like using quantum physics to predict astronomic movement and then argue that since the numbers don't add the model is clearly wrong when in truth the model does not apply.

So you claim. I believe otherwise. I have tried to demonstrate the flaws in your argument to you, but you have unfortunately refused to discuss it with me. I could go back and show you where your points were contradicted or your logic shown to be flawed, but I doubt it would affect you. I'm fairly certain the debate has been thorough enough to give anyone who reads a decently clear picture of where the various parties stand in regard to the facts and to logic.

I only stopped debating with you at the point where you were repeating what you already said and after I debunked your arguments. And go ahead, point me out to those points. You accused me of lying at least once before in this debate, I will not tolerate you doing so again without proof of your claims.

I also used the same kind of logic simply to show how ludicrous doing so was: By extension of pro-choice logic. We should allow everyone to kill/destroy anything that is inconvenient. - I'm yet to hear an answer to this one.

Well the simple answer is that it is OK as long as they are not other independent humans. We routinely kill things that are inconvenient (roaches, cancer cells, etc). Most pro-choice people believe that full human rights only extend to individuals who are biologically independent.

I don't! Does that mean I'm wrong?

And what do you mean by biologically independent? There are folk out there that needs assistance for basic biological functions. Hence things like transplants, hemodialysis, insulin shots, and pacemakers. Do you think we should allow them to die because all that assistance is inconvenient?

[Feud]

<snip>

Your statement is logically equivalent to "only couples that want to get pregnant may have sex." I think I have demonstrated that fairly well.

This means, again, by logical extension, that the only reason to have sex is to create children. Before I continue, do you understand that? I am not asking if you agree, only if you understand that this is the next logical step, based upon your statements.

No, I do not understand that "only couples that want to get pregnant may have sex" is the next logical step from "abstanince is the only 100% effective meathod to prevent pregnancy from occuring."

I would, however, accept that "only couples who are willing to risk getting pregnant despite what ever precautions they may have taken will have sex", which I think would be true whether abortion is legal or not (since abotion can only happen after pregnancy occurs, thus even if it were an option the risk of pregnancy is still taken).

[xander]

If they hate kids so much...

Excuse me? When did I ever say that this hypothetical couple hated kids? You are attacking a straw man...

...and are so adamant in not having one, why don't they make a bloody surgery and recur to adoption if they change their minds later on?

Read what originally brought up this line of thinking. I said that Wendryn and I do not want to have kids right now, but that we do in the future. We don't have the time or the money to deal with a pregnancy right now. However, we do intend to have a child at some point. As to your argument about having a married couple adopt, why do you you just have everyone who wants a child adopt? Why should we be forced to adopt because we have the sense to plan our family in such a way that it can be loving and nourishing and sustained? Why should we be punished for attempting to plan our lives a bit?*

However, as a married couple, there is no society on Earth (that I know of) that would suggest (legally, morally, ethically, religiously, socially, or through any other justification) that we do not have a right to have sex with each other. Feud's argument, at its base, comes down to the statement that because we don't want children right now, we shouldn't have sex. That is a ridiculous argument, which I will get back to when he responds to my last post.

Feud's point is not that if someone's doing sex they want kids. It is that by doing so they are aware of the consequences and accept it. That's not the same as saying it would not be a bloody annoyance.

That is not what he is saying. He is saying that if a couple does not want to have a child, they must either (a) abstain, or (b) carry any unintended pregnancy to term, with all of the associated risks and problems that pregnancies engender. In other words, if a couple does not want to become pregnant, they must abstain. By logical extension, if a couple is having sex, they must want a child. The one is the contrapositive of the other. They are equivalent statements, as I showed above.

However what I can't truly understand is why you're being so self-righteous on this discussion. Even most pro-choice agree that abortion is a terrible thing that should be used only as last resort. You act almost if you want people to make the bloody thing.

Please read the comment that SBM quoted above. I do not think that I have once implied that I consider termination to be a good thing. It is something that should only be undertaken by a well informed individual, after having considered the consequences of all reasonable alternatives, and that termination needs to remain open and legal, to protect pregnant women. Nothing that I have said contradicts that statement.

xander

*This is not to say that adoption is a punishment, only to say that not being able to chose how and when we have children is a punishment.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

I only stopped debating with you at the point where you were repeating what you already said and after I debunked your arguments. And go ahead, point me out to those points. You accused me of lying at least once before in this debate, I will not tolerate you doing so again without proof of your claims.

Debunked my arguments? Hmm. . . I must have missed that part.
I did not accuse you of lying. I suppose you need something else to accuse me of though. . .

As xander pointed out earlier, you seem to like playing the martyr.

I really have no interest in spending time to go back and rehash everything again. At this point I have no faith you'd stick with the debate long enough to even make it work. Like I said, I don't think there is much chance of changing your mind and I think people reading the thread can easily figure out where everyone stands. So there is little need to revisit everything.

That said I might go back in a few days and step through it point by point if I have the time and the inclination (currently I have neither).

I don't! Does that mean I'm wrong?

It means you are wrong to claim there was a logical fallacy in the pro-choice position on that point.

And what do you mean by biologically independent? There are folk out there that needs assistance for basic biological functions. Hence things like transplants, hemodialysis, insulin shots, and pacemakers. Do you think we should allow them to die because all that assistance is inconvenient?

I'm making a distinction between biologically independent and medically independent. Biological independence in my usage means the individual can stand apart from all other individuals. A fetus can't do that. Conjoined twins are another example of individuals who are not biologically independent.

[Xocrates]

So you claim. I believe otherwise. I have tried to demonstrate the flaws in your argument to you, but you have unfortunately refused to discuss it with me. I could go back and show you where your points were contradicted or your logic shown to be flawed, but I doubt it would affect you. I'm fairly certain the debate has been thorough enough to give anyone who reads a decently clear picture of where the various parties stand in regard to the facts and to logic.

As xander pointed out earlier, you seem to like playing the martyr.

I really have no interest in spending time to go back and rehash everything again. At this point I have no faith you'd stick with the debate long enough to even make it work. Like I said, I don't think there is much chance of changing your mind and I think people reading the thread can easily figure out where everyone stands. So there is little need to revisit everything.

That said I might go back in a few days and step through it point by point if I have the time and the inclination (currently I have neither).

This is very easy to say, when the text quoted is not even mine. Actually I don't even know what you're trying to say with the martyr argument. Strangely enough, you're doing the same thing you accused me of.

Debunked my arguments? Hmm. . . I must have missed that part.

Which was why I stopped debating you.

I did not accuse you of lying. I suppose you need something else to accuse me of though. . .

I said I had never heard the term pro-abortion before and that when I used it I did so unconsciously and crafted the word myself. You didn't believe me. Therefore you were accusing me of lying.

I don't! Does that mean I'm wrong?

It means you are wrong to claim there was a logical fallacy in the pro-choice position on that point.

Which is funny since everybody did the same to my arguments. Actually, applying foreign logic to arguments is what a debate is.

I'm making a distinction between biologically independent and medically independent. Biological independence in my usage means the individual can stand apart from all other individuals. A fetus can't do that. Conjoined twins are another example of individuals who are not biologically independent.

So we should kill twins if they become inconvenient?

On a side note, the fetus does not have the same DNA than the mother, so it is biologically independent.

Excuse me? When did I ever say that this hypothetical couple hated kids? You are attacking a straw man...

They want the odds of being a kid to be effectively zero. If they don't mind kids, they should use as many protection as they feel necessary to be reasonable safe that the woman won't get pregnant. If she does it's a bummer, but so is life (and incidently, if they use as many protection as you exemplified before, they're the unluckiest persons on the world). The kid did not come when expected, but who's to say he can't be accommodated? I don't plan my life ten years into the future, I hardly do it until dinner time, because I know that a lot of things could happen. Maybe that couple should think on that.

I think this answers your second point too and I have no problems with the rest of your post.

[Ace Rimmer]

Finally: Ace, I have some words for you, but it is late here, and I have been driving all day. I will compose my thoughts tomorrow. Sufficient to say, at the moment I am angered and disgusted by your answers to my questions.

xander

One last thought about this statement, you yourself said...

However, in order for them to aspire to 'good', there has to be some inherent definition of 'good' in the universe.

I disagree. As an individual, I can determine what I hold to be good and bad. I can then aspire to be a good person, or to do good things, as I define good. I don't need an absolute or objective measure of good and evil to aspire to goodness.

xander

Therefore, I ask whether or not you think others (myself included) can do the same? I disagree with your stand but I wouldn't call you a monster for it.

[xander]

No, I do not understand that "only couples that want to get pregnant may have sex" is the next logical step from "abstanince is the only 100% effective meathod to prevent pregnancy from occuring."

I would, however, accept that "only couples who are willing to risk getting pregnant despite what ever precautions they may have taken will have sex", which I think would be true whether abortion is legal or not (since abotion can only happen after pregnancy occurs, thus even if it were an option the risk of pregnancy is still taken).

Let me try to clarify, then. You said:

I agree that if a couple, under no uncertain terms, wants to be 100% free of pregnancy then yes, abstaining is their only option.

The logical statement "if A, then B" is the same as "if not B, then not A." This is basic logic.

A = the couple does not want to get pregnant
B = the couple may not have sex

Your statement was of the form "if A, then B," i.e. IF a couple does not want to get pregnant, THEN they may not have sex. Are you with me so far? I then phrased the statement in the form of the contrapositive, that is, I said "if ¬B, then ¬A." That looks like this:

¬A = the couple does want to get pregnant
¬B = the couple may have sex

i.e. "IF the couple may have sex, THEN the couple does want to get pregnant." In other words, sex is only for having children, and serves no other role. If a couple is having sex, the must want to get pregnant, otherwise they would be abstaining. Is that clear? Do you understand how that works, tell me how I can clarify.

xander

[Feud]

The logical statement "if A, then B" is the same as "if not B, then not A." This is basic logic.

A = the couple does not want to get pregnant
B = the couple may not have sex

Your statement was of the form "if A, then B," i.e. IF a couple does not want to get pregnant, THEN they may not have sex. Are you with me so far? I then phrased the statement in the form of the contrapositive, that is, I said "if ¬B, then ¬A." That looks like this:

¬A = the couple does want to get pregnant
¬B = the couple may have sex

i.e. "IF the couple may have sex, THEN the couple does want to get pregnant." In other words, sex is only for having children, and serves no other role. If a couple is having sex, the must want to get pregnant, otherwise they would be abstaining. Is that clear? Do you understand how that works, tell me how I can clarify.

xander

I understand the logic you are using, but I disagree with it. Saying the if A then B is equal to if -B then -A looks good on paper, but doesn't translate well beyond it.

Let's use a differant example, "If I go to Grandma's house, then I will get cookies." The contrapositive would then be "if I don't want cookies, then I will not go to Grandma's house." This may not be true though, since I may have wanted cookies, but for what ever reason I didn't go, or I went, but she was not home and so I did not get any cookies. Granted, this example is somewhat silly, but it is just here as an example.

Your reasoning removes those who do not want children, but would not be opposed to thier coming. It also removes those who are unable to have children, but still have sex. While your logic makes sense in it's own sphere, it discounts so many variables that I don't think it has any rational basis in the real world.

[Rkiver]

If a couple does not want to get pregnant they should not have sex. In the strictest sence that is right. That is the only way to be 100% sure.

However those of us in adult relationships who enjoy the sexual part of our nature would say "Hey, we can use contraceptives." Don't get me wrong, they can fail, I've had condoms split on me. Thankfully there is the morning after pill for emergencies such as this.

What if that fails too though? Well then there is still the option of an abortion, though not in Ireland. Abortions are not possible in my country. You have to go to the UK to get them, but the option to go there exists at least. Now would myself and my wife get an abortion if the contraceptives where to fail? Honestly I don't know. But it's nice to have the choice.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

This is very easy to say, when the text quoted is not even mine. Actually I don't even know what you're trying to say with the martyr argument. Strangely enough, you're doing the same thing you accused me of.

Sorry, I got lost in a sea of quotes. It is fixed.

I'm not doing what I accused you of. What you were doing was debating and then whenever it suited you refusing to carry on. These refusals always seemed to happen at convenient moments when you arguments were starting to fail. You're response was always something like "I can't debate with you, I'm leaving". You didn't actually leave and would carry on the discussion in other places.

I'm simply saying I don't have the time or inclination right now to go back and do a point by point deconstruction of your position.

Which was why I stopped debating you.

Heh, believe what you wish. If you wish to believe you somehow prevailed logically be my guest.

That reminds me I've been meaning to find my copy of "The Emperor's New Clothes". . .

I said I had never heard the term pro-abortion before and that when I used it I did so unconsciously and crafted the word myself. You didn't believe me. Therefore you were accusing me of lying.

That's a bit of stretch, but whatever. I said I found it hard to believe you had never heard or seen anything about abortion in English. I still find it hard to believe and don't think you can positively say you haven't. The amount of stuff we are exposed to every day is so great, no one can say for certain what they have seen or not. All we can say is that we don't recall ever seeing it.

Which is funny since everybody did the same to my arguments. Actually, applying foreign logic to arguments is what a debate is.

"Foreign logic"? Logic is logic and it is only foreign to those who make illogical arguments.

So we should kill twins if they become inconvenient?

I thought you would try and twist my statement that way.

No, the twins as a whole are biologically independent and thus should be afforded the basic rights we afford all independent humans.

The place where dependence comes in is vis-a-vis each other. Neither Twin is biologically independent of the other. In many cases the twins cannot survive long if they remained joined and they must be surgically separated. In such cases the parents often have to choose one child to save and one to let go. It is a horrible decision, but one that must be made if either is to have a chance.

On a side note, the fetus does not have the same DNA than the mother, so it is biologically independent.

You are confusing independent and distinguishable.

Also there are other cells in the body that don't share the same DNA as the rest of the body (sperm and egg cells for example have half DNA of most other cells).

[xander]

I understand the logic you are using, but I disagree with it. Saying the if A then B is equal to if -B then -A looks good on paper, but doesn't translate well beyond it.

Let's use a differant example, "If I go to Grandma's house, then I will get cookies." The contrapositive would then be "if I don't want cookies, then I will not go to Grandma's house." This may not be true though, since I may have wanted cookies, but for what ever reason I didn't go, or I went, but she was not home and so I did not get any cookies. Granted, this example is somewhat silly, but it is just here as an example.

No. You are not using the correct logic. I don't think that you do understand the logic that I am using. The logic that I am using is basic, first-order predicate logic. If a statement of the form A -> B is true, then the contrapositive is also true (i.e. ¬B -> ¬A). The contrapositive has, and will always have, the same truth value as the original statement. So, the correctly apply the contrapositive to your statements:

A = I go to Grandma's house
B = I get cookies
¬A = I don't go to Grandma's house
¬B = I don't get cookies
A -> B = IF I go to Grandma's house, THEN I get cookies.
¬B -> ¬A = IF I don't get cookies, THEN I don't go (have not gone) to Grandma's house.

C = I do not want cookies
D = I will not go to Grandma's house
¬C = I want cookies
¬D = I will go to Grandma's house
C -> D = IF I do not want cookies, THEN I will not go to Grandma's house.
¬D -> ¬C = IF I go to Grandma's house, THEN I want cookies.

So, the contrapositive of "If I go to Grandma's house, then I will get cookies" is "If I didn't get any cookies, then I didn't go to Grandma's house." This statement is as logically valid as the original, and, if you try it out, holds true. The same statement can be made about the second example. As I said above, the truth value of a statement and its contrapositive are always the same -- they are equivalent statements. The reason to switch them around, as I did above, with regards to your argument, is to make a rhetorical point.

Your reasoning removes those who do not want children, but would not be opposed to thier coming. It also removes those who are unable to have children, but still have sex. While your logic makes sense in it's own sphere, it discounts so many variables that I don't think it has any rational basis in the real world.

No rational basis in the real world, eh? Wendryn and I don't want to get pregnant. We would be opposed to getting pregnant at this point in time, and if Wendryn got pregnant tomorrow, we would terminate. Wendryn is perfectly capable of having children if we wanted them. We simply don't want them at this point in time. There is at least one real world example, and I hardly think that we are unique.

That being said, I am purposefully leaving out other groups, because they are not relevant to the point that I am trying to make.

The point of this being the following: sex is a part of human relations. People have sex. You can't prevent it from happening. Furthermore, not only does it occur in marriage, but it is a sanctioned part of marriage. It is sanctioned by every church, government, and culture that I know of. If you argue, as you have, that couples that do not want a pregnancy should abstain, then you are arguing that married couples, who have a sanctioned right to have sex with each other must waive that right if they do not want to become pregnant, with 100% reliability. This is absurd.

However, as I have pointed out already, this is really tangential to the best arguments in favor of keeping abortion safe and legal.

xander

[Feud]

The point of this being the following: sex is a part of human relations. People have sex. You can't prevent it from happening. Furthermore, not only does it occur in marriage, but it is a sanctioned part of marriage. It is sanctioned by every church, government, and culture that I know of. If you argue, as you have, that couples that do not want a pregnancy should abstain, then you are arguing that married couples, who have a sanctioned right to have sex with each other must waive that right if they do not want to become pregnant, with 100% reliability. This is absurd.

Absurd? Abortion only happens after pregnancy occurs, so if there is another option besides abstinence that prevents pregnancies from occurring with 100% reliability, then please let me know.

Further, I have not argued that couples who do not want a pregnancy must abstain. I argued that it is better to abstain then to have an abortion, and I have said that a couple that does not want a pregnancy to occur will have the greatest chance to prevent them by abstaining.

But, I have also said that it is based upon priorities, and that it is up to the couples to make the determination which priority they feel is most important.

You have argued in the above post that I am somehow shooting down a method for women to become pregnant, which I'm not. Even your method does not prevent pregnancy, it terminates it prematurely.

This is really just arguing semantics though, and I feel we may have gone about as far as this conversation can really go without hair splitting or repeating.

[xander]

Feud, let me ask another question. You have stated that a couple that does not want a child should either abstain, or be willing to give a child up for adoption. You have tried to waffle around that exact wording, but that is what your argument boils down to, even if you are unwilling to admit it. However, I do find your idea about adoption a bit off.

In your ideal society, termination is illegal. I am going to assume that you have found some way to deal with the privacy and enforcement issues that I brought up before, though I think, quite frankly, that is impossible. Even in that case, what do you do with unwanted pregnancies? A married couple has a sanctioned right to have sex. As I have said several times, this is a nearly universal human understanding, so I would consider laws that prevented a married couple from having sex as a violation of basic human rights. There will be some percentage of women who get pregnant, in the confines of such a relationship, who do not want to be pregnant. You have basically stated that their only choice is to give up the child for adoption.

Okay, so, who takes responsibility for the child? Assuming that the child is in good health, and white, there is a high probability that the he or she will be adopted by another family. However, not all children in the system are adopted, especially if they are of a minority, or handicapped in some way. Who is going to pay for their care? Who is going to take care of them?

Also, who is going to take care of the mother while she is pregnant? The government, through the laws that you want passed, has basically forced her to have a child. As far as I am concerned, from conception to delivery, and a bit beyond, the government is then responsible for everything that happens to her vis a vis the pregnancy. This includes visits to the OB/GYN, hospital visits, money spent dealing with complications, maternity clothes, missed time at work, &c.

Furthermore, I don't see how you can restrict this kind of care to married women who don't want to have children. A woman only has to claim that she doesn't want a child to get that kind of care, or you run the risk, again, of violating privacy rights, which have been defended by the Supreme Court in several instances. Even further, how are you going to restrict these rights only to married women? How do you respond to the complaints of unmarried women who are not getting equal protection, or to women who refuse to get married on religious grounds? Basically, there is no way for the government to avoid being held responsible for any pregnancy, wanted or not. You must admit, this is an untenable situation, no?

xander