The GOP Has Been HIJACKED!

[Kinser79]

(05-23-2016, 07:27 AM)Mikebert Wrote: No.  Opposition to abortions comes from two viewpoints, both of which are logically unassailable.  The pro-choice position is likely logically unassailable.

I would argue that the so-called pro-life camp's argumentation is illogical in so far as it rests on religious doctrine. I will go into detail below why, but I don't think that one can apply logic to those who are arguing from an idealistic conception to start with.

 

Quote: Hence discussion is pointless.

The so-called pro-life vs pro-choice discussion is pointless and I'll not get into it. But I will point out the illogicality of your example. This is more a digression as to the illogical of the argument you've presented, which often do not present themselves in non-boomer circles.

 

Quote: Here's why:

Logical argument against abortion:  A person is a human animal with an immortal soul. 

The Illogicality: There is no evidence that a soul exists. This must be taken on faith alone, faith being the opposite of logic.

Quote:The soul comes associated with a human body at the point of conception.  Therefore a fetus is a person.  From this it follows that abortion is homicide. Avoiding the harm caused by an unwanted pregnancy is not a sufficient justification for homicide.

This argument has the appearance of being logical if one takes the illogical position that souls exist and further that souls are created at conception, thus making a first trimester fetus or zygote a human being. Taken to it's logical extent that a clump of cells that contain human DNA are in fact a human one can also argue that a cancerous tumor is also a human and that therefore radiation therapy, chemotherapy and other cancer treatments are in fact assault, attempted homicide and homicide. Since no "pro-lifer" takes such a positon they are therefore acting on an illogical basis.

Quote:Many people feel that a fetus is a baby because it resembles a baby, and at the time of birth it asymptotically approaches being a baby.  As a result other people's abortions make them very uncomfortable, like the use of the n-word by white people.  Hence they want to ban the practice out of PC concerns.  There is no argument here because it is about feelings.

This is the basis of the 'why' people are pro-life. Likewise, myself, while I'm pro-choice feel that abortion should be considered the last option on the table, and would prefer to prevent abortions themselves by having social structures in place so that the parents can take care of the child (the main reason why abortions happen to start with), and also comprehensive objective sex education to prevent unwanted pregnancy to start with.

I do not believe in the concept of "unplanned" pregnancy. Failing to plan to prevent pregnancy or to have the life style structures in place to care for one's child should one become pregnant is indeed a plan to fail. It is like saying someone playing Russian Roulette accidentally shot themselves.

Continuing on to the illogical pro-choice argument.

Quote:Logical argument in favor of pro-choice:  A fetus is not a person; there is no such thing as a soul.  Any empirical definition of person would involve functionality (e.g. persons are 'above' other animals because of people's superior intellectual abilities) and biological (persons are genetically human).  A human fetus is not functionally more advanced than other mammalian fetuses, and certainly not intellectually more capable than many adult mammals.  The genetic argument is ruled out by the fact that a cancer tumor is a genetically human organism that can live independently of the body, yet is not considered to be a person. In fact, they are routinely removed from their hosts and allowed to die.

I've bold-ed the illogical part of the argument. That functionality of intellect sets humans apart from other animals. Evidence demonstrates that humans are exactly like other animals we just happen to be much smarter than other animals. Taken to the logical conclusion that functionality can be used to determine the termination of a fetus leads us down the road where one could terminate the mentally ill or a retarded person due to lack of functionality. Naturally that argumentation is repugnant to anyone with any sense of morality (objective or otherwise)

Therefore I've concluded that the entirety of the pro-life stance is inherently illogical as it is based on a premise for which there is no evidence, likewise that the pro-choice stance is equally illogical unless one's pro-choice stance is based on the premise that sometimes women become pregnant, they might not be able to care for their children and it is better to terminate a pregnancy early in order to prevent graver social ills, and furthermore, that even if abortion itself were illegal women would still seek them out, have them performed illegally in potentially unsafe manners endangering her life as well.

I would call the italicized argument the "pro-public-safety" stance.