I'm wondering if we can support a reasoned argument on hot-topic as issue of abortions. Unfortunately I have often noticed that when engaging in arguments people tend to use rhetorical tricks and logical fallacies to defend their positions. I don't have a strict position on this issue, but since I know the majority is pro-choice on the abortion issue, then I'll take a pro-life position to warm up the discussion and try to argue it logically.

An important condition for participation in the discussion is not to use sophistry and other rhetorical tricks to defend your position or argue a different position. Straw man arguments, appeals to emotions, to the majority, to the law, to authority are all sophistry, which is not proof of anything. Also ideally do not use inductive arguments cuz they are not proofs. Although I don't expect to see a collection of deductive arguments in favour of pro-choice positions.

As they say you have to start with yourself, and I will formulate my position with a deductive logical argument that comes from a fork (T) - thesis with two options.

T. If it is immoral for you to murder a human being, then abortion is immoral.
If it is morally normal for you to murder a human being, then abortion is not immoral.
P1. Murder - premeditated killing of human being by another human being.
P2. A human zygote (and then blastocyst, fuetus, embryo, infant and any stage of the human being) is a human being (Homo sapiens)
P3. Abortion - premeditated killing of human being by another human being.
C. Abortion is murder.

Any logical argument will work if we accept its premises. If you can prove that any of the premises are wrong, then the argument will not work.

I think all the primises are obvious except that the human zygote is a human being. And probably that's the premise that will be argued most often. I'll explain why I took this primis. Any moment when a non-human becomes a human being is arbitrary except for the very beginning - the zygote. Because this is the very moment when the human dna of one person of the mother and another human being of the father merge into one cell and give birth to a new organism. What species does this organism belong to? Homo sapiens - human being. (I will disclaim that I am an agnostic and religious positions on this issue are not important to me)
This moment when two objects (sperm and ovum) become one object (zygote) is the moment that sets all the conditions for the emergence of a new human being. And each of these two objects individually does not possess the full set of genetic code to form a human being. And when they merge, the genetic code of the mother and father is merged and it is from this point that human growth begins. Any subsequent moment is arbitrary. Zygote is just a stage of human development like any other. With each new stage we can acquire some new attributes. From puberty to adulthood, we mature, our brains develop, and we become smarter and more experienced and we're acquiring more and more attributes. It doesn't mean that at any stage a non-human suddenly became human. You can argue and prove it's not true. This could be interesting.

It may be noted that the form of my deductive argument can justify some cases of abortions. For example, in the case of a threat to the life of a woman in labour, cuz it is morally justifiable to murder in self-defence. It all depends on whether murder is morally permissible for you. You can say you don't think frivolous murders is immoral, and then there is no problem with abortion.

100% pro-choice

I forgot to clarify that I don't care at all what positions anyone holds, what matters is the arguments, i.e. the reasoning behind those positions.

Quote from johneysvk :

100% pro-choice

Agreed.

Quote from johneysvk :

100% pro-choice

Quote from reason0809 :

Agreed.

If you are in favor of pro-choice, and you stand for it consistently, then you must show that my argument is false based on the fact that one (or more) premises are not true.
To reiterate my deductive argument:

T. If it is immoral for you to murder a human being, then abortion is immoral.
If it is morally normal for you to murder a human being, then abortion is not immoral.
P1. Murder - premeditated killing of human being by another human being.
P2. A human zygote (and then blastocyst, fuetus, embryo, infant and any stage of the human being) is a human being (Homo sapiens)
P3. Abortion - premeditated killing of human being by another human being.
C. Abortion is murder.

There are four options here:
1. You show that my argument is false based on the fact that one (or more) premises are not true.
2. You advocate frivolous murder of people and that's morally normal for you. (And maybe you're in favor of negative eugenics, because why not?)
3. You show your inconsistency and essentially you have no reasoning to be in favor of pro-choice.
4. You agree with my argument because you can't argue with it and are in favor of pro-life.

Hey, frivolous murder sounds great.

I'm not gonna entertain your 'argument'

This is another very hard one, but I will try to stay away from it this time..

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

If you are in favor of pro-choice, and you stand for it consistently, then you must show that my argument is false based on the fact that one (or more) premises are not true.
To reiterate my deductive argument:

T. If it is immoral for you to murder a human being, then abortion is immoral.
If it is morally normal for you to murder a human being, then abortion is not immoral.
P1. Murder - premeditated killing of human being by another human being.
P2. A human zygote (and then blastocyst, fuetus, embryo, infant and any stage of the human being) is a human being (Homo sapiens)
P3. Abortion - premeditated killing of human being by another human being.
C. Abortion is murder.

There are four options here:
1. You show that my argument is false based on the fact that one (or more) premises are not true.
2. You advocate frivolous murder of people and that's morally normal for you. (And maybe you're in favor of negative eugenics, because why not?)
3. You show your inconsistency and essentially you have no reasoning to be in favor of pro-choice.
4. You agree with my argument because you can't argue with it and are in favor of pro-life.

You are eloquent idiot.

You can argument things in a way so it constructs a structure where only your opinion is valid, and everyone disagreeing with you has to go through even more complex constructs to try and "prove" you in the wrong. This is a racing games forum, go race and stop talking bullshit.

I think this topic is far too much about discussed in here, although so are several others.

Abortion is of course a murder, but reasons why abortions are still being done are extremely thin layer between black, grey and white areas. One perspective about this doesn't justify whether things should do like this or so. Humans have feelings... We feel bad when someone's life is taken away before it even started... yet we still happen to take out each others during wars, because we want so.

And then there is about innocence... religion... status... human race even... all of these reasons about this topic.

I am not the correct person about discussing this, but whatever is the reason, it should not be taken lightly about this.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

If you are in favor of pro-choice, and you stand for it consistently, then you must show that my argument is false based on the fact that one (or more) premises are not true.
To reiterate my deductive argument:

T. If it is immoral for you to murder a human being, then abortion is immoral.
If it is morally normal for you to murder a human being, then abortion is not immoral.
P1. Murder - premeditated killing of human being by another human being.
P2. A human zygote (and then blastocyst, fuetus, embryo, infant and any stage of the human being) is a human being (Homo sapiens)
P3. Abortion - premeditated killing of human being by another human being.
C. Abortion is murder.

There are four options here:
1. You show that my argument is false based on the fact that one (or more) premises are not true.
2. You advocate frivolous murder of people and that's morally normal for you. (And maybe you're in favor of negative eugenics, because why not?)
3. You show your inconsistency and essentially you have no reasoning to be in favor of pro-choice.
4. You agree with my argument because you can't argue with it and are in favor of pro-life.

I couldn’t care less if your "arguments" are valid or not.

Her body, her choice. End of discussion.

Quote from reason0809 :

I couldn’t care less if your "arguments" are valid or not.

Her body, her choice. End of discussion.

As you wish. But only on the basis of these theses of yours, I could start a discussion on this topic, asking clarifying questions to get to the core of your position.

But instead you said, "End of discussion." That's your right. But why not try to have a discussion about it? I am ready to recognize good arguments of the interlocutor if they contradict mine. And if these arguments are stronger than mine, I will have to recognize that his position is stronger and makes more sense.

By the way, I originally held the prochoice position as well. Just because the environment imposed or just because of the zeitgeist. But when I was confronted with a really strong position that was hard to argue with, I just accepted it. And I improved my position.

In my opinion, it's always good to question your positions, even if you believe them to be true. That's the essence of critical thinking, to question your own beliefs in order to improve your views, if you do not do this, it will lead to stagnation, that's why I like reasoned discussions or debates and that's why I don't like when participants of these debates start using sophistry and various rhetorical tricks. Suppose you lost in this debate because the arguments of your interlocutor were stronger. What's wrong with that? Bad and good are just value judgments that essentially mean nothing. What matters is who gained new knowledge? The one who lost the debate and learned new arguments he hadn't thought of before has gained new knowledge. And the winner of the debate has gained nothing. So the real winner is the one who gained something, isn't he? in my opinion, the real winner is the one who has realized something new and based on it can adjust his position. The worst thing you can do in this situation is to end the discussion without starting it.

If you're still not interested just don't reply to this post and the discussion with you on this matter will be over.

Ok, I have to involve. Number, what you wrote the way you wrote is not ok. There is no need for such harsh insults, you deserve a punishment, but I will not be a judge of that.

When we fist find out my wife was 1 week pregnant, some 2 years ago, she wanted an abortion as she felt she's not ready for a child. That made me feel extremely sad, since I was quite happy about being a dad. Luckily, I was able to talk some sence to her. Now, many moons down the road, parenting is hard as hell, but I didn't regret our decision to have this great creature being born.

That being said, many people do not deserve and/or should not be parents, this is a hard game to play and would be good to have a way out. Even wanted baby is hard to take care of, an unwated poor one is better off into someone elses hands, but that is again a huge missery for child to be raised in an orphans institution..That's when everything is ok with a baby, what if there is something very wromg that is detected from the early on (you can only do abortion <= 3 months), taking care of such baby is nightmare if one does not abort pregnancy.

Quote from NumberTwo :

You are eloquent idiot.

You can argument things in a way so it constructs a structure where only your opinion is valid, and everyone disagreeing with you has to go through even more complex constructs to try and "prove" you in the wrong. This is a racing games forum, go race and stop talking bullshit.

And your argument is insults? Well, that's not surprising from someone who hasn't heard anything about argumentation theory. I brought in a deductive argument instead of describing my feelings and experiences.
And this isa racing games off topic forum. Where people discuss things like music, movies, news, wars, history, philosophy. This question is part of philosophical discourse. From applied ethics. If you can't say anything about it and bring atleast some meaning, then you shouldn't post here, because it's your posts that are out of place here.

Anyone who isn't pro-choice is an idiot, so I think it is fair to call Aleksandr an idiot here. Number is correct.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

And your argument is insults? Well, that's not surprising from someone who hasn't heard anything about argumentation theory. I brought in a deductive argument instead of describing my feelings and experiences.
And this isa racing games off topic forum. Where people discuss things like music, movies, news, wars, history, philosophy. This question is part of philosophical discourse. From applied ethics. If you can't say anything about it and bring atleast some meaning, then you shouldn't post here, because it's your posts that are out of place here.

meanwhile your argument is calling people hypocrites and advocates of murder



number summed it up pretty accurately in 2 sentences

Quote from UnknownMaster21 :

I think this topic is far too much about discussed in here, although so are several others.

Abortion is of course a murder, but reasons why abortions are still being done are extremely thin layer between black, grey and white areas. One perspective about this doesn't justify whether things should do like this or so. Humans have feelings... We feel bad when someone's life is taken away before it even started... yet we still happen to take out each others during wars, because we want so.

And then there is about innocence... religion... status... human race even... all of these reasons about this topic.

I am not the correct person about discussing this, but whatever is the reason, it should not be taken lightly about this.

I agree. Because of their feelings, people come up with mental constructs to assuage their feelings about abortion. And I don't see anything wrong with that if it only serves to help yourself, and doesn't go as spreading ideas to others.

But what does it mean to not take it lightly? I'm in favor of not bringing any feelings into this topic. I realize that's gonna be difficult for a lot of people. And maybe those who can't make it shouldn't discuss it. If we make decisions based on our feelings rather than on rationality. Could that be the problem?

I didn't say my argument was correct, I just asked you to consider its premises. And I said I didn't have a clear position on the issue. I took a pro-life position to warm up the debate as stated in the first post. Instead, it was a spate of gratuitous insults. It's a shame to see this level of discourse. I expected something better than this.
Unfortunately, everyone here is thinking emotionally instead of rationally.

Quote from rane_nbg :

Ok, I have to involve.

I could start a discussion, but since it affects you personally and your feelings, I wouldn't want to. But if you could take it apart from yourself, maybe a reasonable discussion could be had.

Arguments™

Sorry for that post above, but i just dont really get it
Aleksandr (Alexey), do u try to troll people, in context of an offtopic "talk about anything" rule?

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

As you wish. But only on the basis of these theses of yours, I could start a discussion on this topic, asking clarifying questions to get to the core of your position.

But instead you said, "End of discussion." That's your right. But why not try to have a discussion about it? I am ready to recognize good arguments of the interlocutor if they contradict mine. And if these arguments are stronger than mine, I will have to recognize that his position is stronger and makes more sense.

By the way, I originally held the prochoice position as well. Just because the environment imposed or just because of the zeitgeist. But when I was confronted with a really strong position that was hard to argue with, I just accepted it. And I improved my position.

In my opinion, it's always good to question your positions, even if you believe them to be true. That's the essence of critical thinking, to question your own beliefs in order to improve your views, if you do not do this, it will lead to stagnation, that's why I like reasoned discussions or debates and that's why I don't like when participants of these debates start using sophistry and various rhetorical tricks. Suppose you lost in this debate because the arguments of your interlocutor were stronger. What's wrong with that? Bad and good are just value judgments that essentially mean nothing. What matters is who gained new knowledge? The one who lost the debate and learned new arguments he hadn't thought of before has gained new knowledge. And the winner of the debate has gained nothing. So the real winner is the one who gained something, isn't he? in my opinion, the real winner is the one who has realized something new and based on it can adjust his position. The worst thing you can do in this situation is to end the discussion without starting it.

If you're still not interested just don't reply to this post and the discussion with you on this matter will be over.

I'll rather let women decide what to do with their bodies and not have cis male dudes discuss about on the internet.

Her body, her choice. Its none of our business.

Quote from reason0809 :

Her body, her choice. Its none of our business.

That's right, her body, her choice. It's a her choice what to do with her body. And so a human being can't decide what to do with another human being's. Especially if it concerns murder. This is a pro-life argument. So i do not understand why you're in favour of pro-choice. And why you talk in slogans without explaining anything. As if you're not capable of thinking with your own head, but only repeating someone else's agenda.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

I forgot to clarify that I don't care at all what positions anyone holds, what matters is the arguments, i.e. the reasoning behind those positions.

What I get is emoticons, insults, unfounded theses. I get everything but reasoning. I don't care if you're pro-choice or pro-life. Give me some rationale. But there's only rage, only emotions.

I did this whole thread as an experiment to see if a reasoned conversation is possible here.
Apparently not... It's disappointing.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

That's right, her body, her choice. It's a her choice what to do with her body. And so a human being can't decide what to do with another human being's. Especially if it concerns murder. This is a pro-life argument. So i do not understand why you're in favour of pro-choice. And why you talk in slogans without explaining anything. As if you're not capable of thinking with your own head, but only repeating someone else's agenda.

Its none of your business to decide if Pro Choice is considered murder. Its none of your business to rule over a womens body if they want to keep it or not. I'm capable of thinking with my own head. And my own head tells me there is no reason to keep talking to you. The whole point in this thread you started was trying to gather pro life arguments, but you failed. people in here are luckily way ahead in education and wont jump on the bandwagon of your ****ed up propaganda.