When the counterargument starts by suggesting we be polite when the Constitution gets dismantled...
I'm happy you agree completely it's narrow-minded to enforce your morality on a woman.
I can understand that men feel like they should have a say but in the end it is the woman's decision whether or not to have a baby.
As a side note, you can't simply call an issue "complex" as a way to absolve yourself of the responsibility for explaining why you write off others' opinions on a subject.
This very basically is a fallacy of moderation. You're suggesting that the moderate view is the correct view simply by virtue of not being "extreme" or "fanatical."
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).Person B attacks position Y.Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
You say, "Pro-life advocates suggest we be polite when the Constitution gets dismantled."No, actually I said...
You say, "Pro-life advocates suggest we be polite when the Constitution gets dismantled."
I don't think you REALLY care about the babies. I think you REALLY want to punish women for having sex.
The entire issue of abortion is whether religious fundamentalist leaders should make your moral choices for you or not, full stop.
I very much doubt most pro-lifers give a damn about the good of society.
And saying that you should do everything you can while the opposite happens as a direct result of those very pro-lifers' actions...
Handing out condoms reduces unwanted pregnancies and therefore reduces abortions.
Also recognize that the majority of Americans support abortion rights...
Let's discuss the inherent hypocrisy in the stance of those who would have doctors who perform abortions or women who have abortions executed for murder...
Honestly, if that's what you think 'sex education' is, you're terribly misguided.
...really, the lack of serious challenge to Roe itself over its lifetime so far indicates its utility as a workable compromise.
can you give us a link to the Gallup poll? I'd like to see how the questions were framed.
I appreciate your viewpoint, but doesn't it seem reasonable to leave these determinations up to the women whose bodies are actually being taken over? When life begins is not something we can easily answer...
...in my eyes calling it "slavery" isn't hyperbole. Telling a woman she has no choice but to bear a child against her will...
Can you show me how your position is different?
The point you were making, I think, is that you wouldn't force anyone to bear a child against her will. Yet that is exactly what further restrictions on abortion would do.
I believe, if you dig far enough, you'll find that anti-abortion activists, nearly always, aren't truly about saving fetuses. They're not pro-life, they're anti-sex. Being forced to have a child is punishment for being irresponsible. It's not really about the child, it's really about controlling the behavior of the mother.
« Older "History is filled with legends of Demons: evil c... | And the winner is . . . irrele... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt