Posted on 08/02/2008 12:56:26 PM PDT by wagglebee
Please note that I have now taken up the term "silly" for this, but I had not, prior to your claim. :-)
Nice false dichotomy.
Most are.
I am presenting you with an argument of the form reductio ad absurdum, which is a valid form of argument that you will find in any logic textbook.
The following two statements are of the precise same form:
(a) Abortion should be allowed because many of those who are aborted would develop into criminals.
(b) Killing five-year-olds should be allowed because many of those five-year-olds would develop into criminals.
The argument (a) is OFTEN presented in seriousness by those who favor legal abortion.
The argument (b) is of precisely the same form, and is therefore of precisely the same validity as argument (a).
The typical response of those who are unskilled in following logical arguments is:
"I was talking about abortion. I wasn't talking about five-year-olds. Why are you changing the subject?"
The response of those who CAN follow a logical argument is:
"I see that argument (b) is absurd, and therefore, argument (a), being fundamentally identical, must also be absurd."
The argument of the form reductio ad absurdum exposes absurd arguments for what they are. And, it simultaneously exposes those who are unskilled in following, or who have chosen not to follow, because of moral corruption, the logical implications of absurd assertions.
In the Middle Ages, a person was lucky to know 200 people, and Facebook has 30,000,000 from whom a person can choose--and the author is saying, "
There's also the fallacy that every person born in the US since 1973 would be on Facebook. The author claims:
In other words, if all those aborted babies had had a chance to live, Facebook would be more than double its size.That's simply not true, or Facebook would already be more than double its size, as there have been more than 130 million live births in the US since 1973. Then, factor in the point that many Facebook members are NOT from the US. Then, factor in that the Terms of Service of Facebook do not allow members under age 13, and there goes another of her chunk. Etc.
Yes, there might have been someone aborted who could have been her friend on Facebook...but that doesn't justify cooking the numbers and making it look like the fight against abortion builds on dishonesty and "not enough people on Facebook."
I am presenting you with an argument of the form reductio ad absurdum, which is a valid form of argument that you will find in any logic textbook.
The following two statements are of the precise same form:
(a) Abortion should be allowed because many of those who are aborted would develop into criminals.
(b) Killing five-year-olds should be allowed because many of those five-year-olds would develop into criminals.
The argument (a) is OFTEN presented in seriousness by those who favor legal abortion.
The argument (b) is of precisely the same form, and is therefore of precisely the same validity as argument (a).
The typical response of those who are unskilled in following logical arguments is:
"I was talking about abortion. I wasn't talking about five-year-olds. Why are you changing the subject?"
The response of those who CAN follow a logical argument is:
"I see that argument (b) is absurd, and therefore, argument (a), being fundamentally identical, must also be absurd."
The argument of the form reductio ad absurdum exposes absurd arguments for what they are. And, it simultaneously exposes those who are unskilled in following, or who have chosen not to follow, because of moral corruption, the logical implications of absurd assertions.
Projecting? - Did you mean Extrapolating?
That is exactly what he has done; logically extrapolate from murder in the womb to murder outside the womb.
Oh, like this...?If you're truly against abortion, let other folks oppose it as they see fit.You'll excuse me if that drops you into the category of "sneering ninny" then. Few people listen to sneering ninnies.
Well, if that's how you want to describe yourself, ok. But I think that this is a discussion forum, and sharing opinions on the best policies, etc., as well as the best ways to enact them, is part of the reason people are here.
I have often thought about doing that. I also know that to do so would open me up to personal attacks. Let's just say that while I am not for abortion I am not 100% against it.
I will be brief. There is more to it than what I will post but the basics are these:
My personal belief is that those souls who were aborted will come back at another time when the world is ready for them and when God decides it is time.
My beliefs have nothing to do with politics or the law. It's about the love of God and his protection of the souls of the unborn. He knows their life and their time. Not us.
No. Projecting. Projecting his conclusions about what I am thinking.
The key word being absurd. Your previous projection of your argument that: "If the fact that abortion kills potential rapists, murderers, molesters, etc., is a justification for abortion, then you have to admit that if we killed all the kindergarteners in America, that would be justified, too, because if we did, we would also be killing lots of potential rapists, murderers, molesters, etc."
Equating the two is absurd.
"There is none righteous, no not one..."
Liberal: "Women should be allowed to control their own bodies, because you can't legislate morality."
Normal Human: "So, if you can't legislate morality, that means we should repeal all the laws that prohibit stealing, since such laws are an attempt to legislate 'Thou shalt not steal.'"
Liberal: "I wasn't talking about stealing. Why are you changing the subject?"
That is totally contrary to God's word, which places the creation of the soul and spirit at the point of union between the Father and Mother.
Are you some kind of Hindu?
Of course, that is not what the author of the essay stated. She did not state that all aborted persons would have been her friends. In your smallness you tried to raise that red herring.
How is it that when you use hyperbole (which of course the author also did) it is to be accepted without question, but when the author uses hyperbole related to a very valid argument—that murdered people are no longer a source of love and affection for those with whom their life would intersect—in your state of mental anguish and smallness you spew your scummy attitude trying to validate the abortion slaughter? ... And we're supposed to treat your asinine attitude with respect? Bwahahahaha, you maroon.
What is being equated is not the SUBJECTS (babies in the womb/children in kindergarten) of the two arguments, but the FORM of the two arguments, which shows that BOTH arguments are absurd.
Objecting to "equating the two [subjects]" is fundamentally the same as objecting to "changing the subject." Making that objection is a confession that one has failed to understand the formal, logical point being made, having been distracted by the subjects of the two arguments.
I am sure there is a good Wikipedia article on reductio ad absurdum. (Since it isn't a political matter that the masters of Wikipedia would interfere with.)
No, equating the two is purely logical; equal action, equal outcome.
Are you some kind of ass?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.