Knight_of_BAAWA:1. The fetus wasn't forced into the womb. 2. The woman isn't metaphorically pushing the fetus into the street. 3. Ergo, false analogy. And it's a strawman because you're claiming that's my position.
2. The woman isn't metaphorically pushing the fetus into the street.
3. Ergo, false analogy. And it's a strawman because you're claiming that's my position.
Spideynw:1-The point is that the baby had no choice as to whether or not it was in the womb
Irrelevant, and now you changed how the person was forced onto the land. Further, in your false analogy, you're forcing something already there and with rights onto your property, so you've violated that person's rights in the first place. And before the egg and sperm met in the womb, there wasn't a "person", so your analogy falls apart spectacularly in a boom of epic fail.
Spideynw:2-I changed the analogy, unfortunately, you had already responded before I could post it. I changed it to forcing someone into your car, driving a hundred miles an hour, and then shoving them out of your car, which results in their death.
Still a false analogy, since there is no "person" before sperm and egg meet.
Or did you fail high school biology/sex ed?
So yes: it is a false analogy and strawman. You fail so badly that your argument should be a picture on failblog.org.
Saying that a woman has a right to take a baby out of her body, because it is her body, which results in the babies death is the same as saying that you have a right to push someone out of your car, because it is your car, when you are driving a hundred miles an hour, even if it results in his/her death.
"Most voters know nothing about how markets work—or even that they work..." Sheldon Richman
Spideynw:Saying that a woman has a right to take a baby out of her body, because it is her body, which results in the babies death is the same as saying that you have a right to push someone out of your car, because it is your car, when you are driving a hundred miles an hour, even if it results in his/her death.
No it isn't. Please refrain from using false analogies.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Spideynw:Saying that a woman has a right to take a baby out of her body, because it is her body, which results in the babies death is the same as saying that you have a right to push someone out of your car, because it is your car, when you are driving a hundred miles an hour, even if it results in his/her death. No it isn't. Please refrain from using false analogies.
Why is it not a valid analogy?
How is it a valid one? I am under no obligation to disprove your unproven claim.
You are going to have to provide a more in depth argument as to why that is a false analogy. From what I see both Abortion, as in removal of the fetus and Spideynw's analogy to the car are both equal morally to eviction from one's property.
Oh, and since you have said that we must only look at the present state of property rights, and not the events leading up to the violation of property rights nor the events after the eviction from said property, please explain why this is a false analogy.
JackSkylark:You are going to have to provide a more in depth argument as to why that is a false analogy. From what I see both Abortion, as in removal of the fetus and Spideynw's analogy to the car are both equal morally to eviction from one's property.
Then show it--if you can.
But remember this: before the sperm and egg met, there was no person. So please tell me how the analogy is proper. Tall task, isn't it?
Knight_of_BAAWA: How is it a valid one? I am under no obligation to disprove your unproven claim.
You are the one claiming that it is not valid, as such, the burden on you is to show that it is not a valid analogy. Otherwise, anytime someone makes an analogy, one could just say it is not so, and how lame would that be?
This is the problem with people that know about argumentative fallacies, and even have some of the names memorized, but have no clue about their actual application.
Knight_of_BAAWA: But remember this: before the sperm and egg met, there was no person. So please tell me how the analogy is proper. Tall task, isn't it?
And before someone got in your car, no one else was in your car. What is your point?
Knight_of_BAAWA:But remember this: before the sperm and egg met, there was no person. So please tell me how the analogy is proper. Tall task, isn't it?
Spideynw:And before *someone* got in your car, no one else was in your car. What is your point?
The bolded part does nicely.
Now then: show that the woman no longer owns her womb when she's pregnant. Remember: it's her womb. All of your emotive pleas will not get you anywhere. None of them have any semblance of rationality, but are merely knee-jerk conflations of aesthetics with morality. If the woman cannot have the fetus removed (in the sense of by law or morally), then she no longer owns her womb. Thus, she is a slave. Why is it that you fetophiles conveniently forget that?
I fail to see how your absolutely false analogy of throwing someone out of a car even works here. All you scream is that "it's valid it's valid it'svaliditsvalid!". Well show it. You seem to be under the erroneous notion that the woman "invited" the fetus in by having sex. Let's assume for the moment that she was trying to get pregnant. Fine. She can change her mind. It's her body. If she cannot change her mind, then she is a SLAVE. Why do you fetophiles forget that? Why the desire to turn a woman into nothing more than a vessel? Why strip her of her humanity, as you say the pro-choice do for the fetus? Smacks of projection to me.
Knight_of_BAAWA:How is it a valid one? I am under no obligation to disprove your unproven claim.
Spideynw:You are the one claiming that it is not valid
You are the one claiming it is valid; as such, the burden is on you to show that it is a valid analogy. Go to it.
Hint: shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy. Your problem is that you use fallacies in your arguments.
Sorry Baawa, you still haven't come close to showing why its a false analogy.
Let me help you out.
For starters, your body is not a car. There is a difference in the degree of intrusion.
Debates like this really show people's true colors, eh?
JonBostwick:Sorry Baawa, you still haven't come close to showing why its a false analogy.
Actually, I have. I already mentioned that the person's body is not a car. This is further backed up by noting the enslavement of the woman. Clearly, a car cannot be enslaved.
I'm still waiting for them to show that it's a valid analogy. I really have no desire to humor them and disprove then unproven assertions.
Byzantine: Geoffrey Allan Plauche: At any rate, the point at which the biological basis for rationality fully develops is clearly a non-arbitrary one. You may disagree with it, but you can't disagree with it on the basis of abritrariness. You are still drawing an arbitrary line. All you've done is move the yardstick to the degree of rationality in order to avoid the dilemma posed by the fact that a one-year old or severe autistic is incapable of rational thought as it is commonly understood. I'm not saying your measure is an illogical one; but it is still arbitrary. What you are doing is aligning the measure in accordance with your moral sensibilities. You are, as one should be, troubled at the idea of a late-term abortion or infanticide, so you move the line back to the point where you're comfortable. Understand, I'm not trying to discredit your position because I think it's probably a sensible one, but it is unavoidably arbitrary.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: At any rate, the point at which the biological basis for rationality fully develops is clearly a non-arbitrary one. You may disagree with it, but you can't disagree with it on the basis of abritrariness.
You are still drawing an arbitrary line. All you've done is move the yardstick to the degree of rationality in order to avoid the dilemma posed by the fact that a one-year old or severe autistic is incapable of rational thought as it is commonly understood. I'm not saying your measure is an illogical one; but it is still arbitrary. What you are doing is aligning the measure in accordance with your moral sensibilities. You are, as one should be, troubled at the idea of a late-term abortion or infanticide, so you move the line back to the point where you're comfortable. Understand, I'm not trying to discredit your position because I think it's probably a sensible one, but it is unavoidably arbitrary.
No. You're the same mistake I've already pointed out a couple of times. It is not the degree of rationality or how well one uses one's capacity for rationality that is the criterion. It is the capacity for rationality itself. It is the actuality of that capacity.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan PlaucheDoctoral CandidatePolitical ScienceLouisiana State University
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"(Who watches the watchmen?)-Juvenal, Satires VI.347
Knight_of_BAAWA: JonBostwick:Sorry Baawa, you still haven't come close to showing why its a false analogy. Actually, I have. I already mentioned that the person's body is not a car. This is further backed up by noting the enslavement of the woman. Clearly, a car cannot be enslaved.
Yet the owner of said car is wronged, just as much as the owner of the womb.
An improvement to the car scenario might be to have the trespasser be a rapist, rather than simply a passive passenger. Though, I don't care much for these parasite analogies and the like as they are utterly dehumanizing. Though, oddly, that is sometimes exactly why they are used.