A great first step to ending Abortion!
- Thread starter Wolverine
- Start date
gfm's logic pez dispenser jammed.
I agree
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I’m not in agreement with this Ohio law.
I’m pro choice except for late term abortions. A women needs to make her decision early.
I’ve seen too many unwanted and neglected children. There are way too many people that should not be parents.
If you want to impose the death penalty do so against those parents that abuse and neglect their children.
It is a word you use to keep yourself from feeling shame, for your support of a barbaric practice!
It is a word you use to keep yourself from feeling shame, for your support of a barbaric practice!
You're probably aware that most of those are done because either the fetus is not viable, or going to term would endanger the mom, right? Would you support still allowing those procedures?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
yes.....its why I pointed out that not killing unborn children is better than killing unborn children.......
Then change the law in states like NY and WV that says that.
No. However,since you're someone who clearly knows nothing about Christianity, it's not surprising you'd make that error. Fortunately for you, the Bible is widely available, and you can go and look it up any time you'd like to enlighten yourself.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I will look for the passage that says "let the little children suffer and cut them into tiny pieces before they are brought unto me".........its your favorite, right?......
No, it very clearly isn't. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the basics of logic, if you honestly believe "loaded language" constitutes a logical fallacy.
Appealing to a definition when discussing the meaning of words is obviously not a logical fallacy. It's a necessary step. You seem to think anything that leaves you looking stupid must be a logical fallacy. It doesn't work that way.
If you want to redefine the word, that's fine. It's all just semantics. If you want "fetus" to mean, say, licorice-flavored cotton candy, then we can stipulate that and move on. But it doesn't alter the underlying sense of the argument, which entails the right-wingers here trying to impose a category error, by treating the unborn and the born as the same thing and urging people to conclude that therefore what applies to the born (a right to life) must also apply to the unborn. The born have a right to life for a reason. If the unborn don't share that reason, then you'll need another justification for saying they have a right to life.
How about Merriam Webster, then:
"an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind specifically"
Sure: the warming of a globe.
No. They are scientific ideas, based on accumulated evidence, and subject to falsification by future evidence.
It's funny that in making that accusation, you demonstrate an actual circular argument. You've offered no explanation for why they should be regarded as circular arguments, aside from your own assertion that they're circular arguments.
So? Many scientific ideas are about past unobserved events. For example, you find a volcano where the rock is composed of the kind of rock that you've seen formed by lava cooling many times around the world, and that you only ever find in areas where it's consistent with the theory that the rock was formed by the cooling of lava. However, you didn't actually see that particular rock form. It's a past unobserved event. Does that make it a religion to theorize that such rock was formed by cooling lava? Of course not. If science were only possible with regard to present observed events, there'd be very little science to speak of. Yes, of course, it's possible that a magical genie formed that rock, making it look like rock that we've seen formed from lava, and placed it next to a bunch of magma, with formations that are consistent with a former liquid flow, and that he only did so to fool us. But it's not unscientific to go with the simpler explanation, with so much going in favor of it. It's the same with evolution by natural selection, or the Big Bang Theory, or the theory of anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming, or plate tectonics, etc.
They are, indeed. There are any number of possible pieces of evidence that, if found, could completely annihilate a theory like, say, global warming theory. For example, maybe someone invents a new experiment that finds that although greenhouse gases absorb infrared light in some circumstances, when such gases are allowed to circulate freely, as in an atmosphere, they actually allow the infrared light to flow through unmolested, and maybe such an experiment is independently repeatedly replicated, such that the mechanism by which anthropogenic global warming was meant to have happened couldn't possible function, destroying the theory. Similarly, maybe, around the world, fossil records start finding evidence of fossil rabbits in the precambrian, with radioisotope evidence supporting that dating, in various sites around the world, completely pulverizing our idea of the evolutionary timeline and forcing the abandonment or complete reworking of the theory.
Last edited:
No. Look up the passage I cited. The Bible is a fairly important book, and you should at least begin to familiarize yourself with it.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
It is the very best way to prevent it.
It never fails.
Yes, they will. That is not practicing abstinence.
Once you have sex, you are no longer practicing abstinence.
Correct. Many decide to have sex. They typically don't think about the consequences nor responsibilities until "whoopie, I'm pregnant"...
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Again, I did NOT say theism... I said religion... Theism is only a small sect of what religion entails...
You've proven this? Or is this your belief?
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Okay... Let's start with yours, then... Is that alright?
It does.
Quote a passage which does this.
Quote a passage which does this.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Inversion Fallacy. That's what YOU are doing, not me.
I have provided the text and explained it...
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
It is.
Inversion Fallacy.
Yes, it is.
No, it's not. Agreeing upon (or debating) the meaning of key words is a necessary step, but appealing to a dictionary as the authoritative source of a word definition is not a necessary step; that is in fact the appeal to false authority fallacy.
No, I don't. A fallacy is an error of logic. That's all a fallacy is. It works much like a math error works...
I just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing...
It might not be the same "thing", per se, but it most certainly is the same exact life... It just happens to be at a different stage of life, like a caterpillar vs a butterfly. That different stage of life doesn't give someone the right to murder it. Human life shouldn't only be sacred once it comes out of the womb (IF it is "wanted"); it should be sacred throughout the whole process (whether "wanted" or not).
Why do the born have a right to life? Where does that right come from (what is the source of that right)?
I would argue that the reason is shared. I would suppose we view the reasoning differently...
Okay, so to put a timetable on it, would you be okay with applying that definition to a human as "at approximately 8 weeks after conception until birth...", since approx. 8 weeks is when the life begins looking very human-like in appearance?
Nope, that definition doesn't work. It is circular. It only makes reference to itself. Any argumentation based on it is a void argument.
It needs to refer to something outside of itself.
No, they are not "scientific ideas".
Science is not "accumulated evidence". It is a set of falsifiable theories. Science does not make use of supporting evidence; only conflicting evidence.
So your "accumulated evidence" can be falsified by "accumulated evidence"? HUH? No, only conflicting evidence can falsify a theory... No amount of supporting evidence can bless, sanctify, make holy, etc. any theory of science...
No, I didn't. A circular argument is defined as an argument which concludes with its initial predicate (in other words, to argue Y, therefore Y). Evolution does this, as it concludes from its predicate that current life forms evolved from other life forms over the course of millions/billions of years... The Big Bang Theory also does this, as it concludes from its predicate that a singularity "exploded" into the ever expanding universe that we live in today. Neither of those theories have been proven true (nor can they be). They can ultimately only be accepted or rejected on a faith basis (circular reasoning).
No, ZERO science is based on past unobserved events. Past unobserved events are not falsifiable, and science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Yes, it does, actually. Supporting evidence is not a proof. Religions are what make use of supporting evidence. Science, instead, makes use of conflicting evidence. The null hypothesis in this case would be to go back in time to see what actually happened. We don't have access to functional time machines. We can't test that theory against the null hypothesis to falsify it. It is unfalsifiable. Therefore, you are religiously believing that to be true (based on your supporting evidence for it).
There's plenty of theories of science. There are plenty of religious theories too...
Precisely! That's precisely why your theory was a theory of religion rather than a theory of science...
Yes, it is. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's ALL science is. It has nothing to do with supporting evidence.
A religion; not science.
This WAS a theory of science, but has since been falsified.
A religion, not science.
A religion, not science. In fact, this theory outright rejects currently standing theories of science, such as the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law. It also rejects logic and statistical mathematics.
Don't know enough about plate tectonics to comment intelligently...
Supporting evidence doesn't falsify theories. Conflicting evidence does...
All of what you said here is just various examples of switching from one religion to a different religion based on the acceptance of a different set of supporting evidence. None of that is science in any way. It is purely religion... In order to be science, it would first have to be falsifiable. Then the theory would have to be tested against its null hypothesis and continue to survive that testing.