Talk:Essay:Political arguments favoring abortion on demand

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

I find this article does not do what it says. It doesn't give reasons from the constitution as much as court decisions that have created laws that allow abortion. We already know court decisions have made abortion legal. The question is, what does the constitution say? Arguments should focus in that area, otherwise this is just a reiteration of abortion precedent under the guise of pretending to discuss constitutionality. Learn together 18:19, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

The wording of the liberal argument is tricky. They want to argue that abortion on demand is ought to be something that a woman has a right to choose. So they assume their conclusion; see circular argument.
Everyone has the right to make choices.
No one could say that men have the right to make choices, but that women don't. Therefore, everyone ought to favor "a woman's right to choose".
Abortion on demand equals "a woman's right to choose".
Therefore, everyone ought to favor abortion on demand.
It's really quite clever how they made this argument. It's parallel to the "homophobia" scam: irrational reasoning and arguments based on "hate" should be disregarded because they are nonsensical. Opposition to homosexuality is a phobia, i.e., an irrational fear or hatred. Therefore, opposition to homosexuality is nonsensical. --Ed Poor Talk 23:21, 20 November 2007 (EST)
Actually, when you put it that way it sounds quite reasonable. Why do you say that it is a scam? That is to say: where is the logical flaw? --Gridley 23:25, 20 November 2007 (EST)
So glad you asked. :-)
Here's the argument, laid out like a proof in formal logic:
  1. Irrational opposition should be disregarded.
  2. Opposition to homosexuality is a phobia.
  3. Phobia means irrational hate or fear.
  4. Opposition to homosexuality is irrational (2, 3)
  5. Opposition to homesexuality should be disregarded. (1, 4)
The numbers in parentheses refer to the statements in the proof which support inferences. Statements which are not derived are called premises.
You can see that it all hinges on premise #2 Opposition to homosexuality is a phobia. This is the point at which liberals and conservatives part company. Liberals claim that it is only because of fear or "hate" that people oppose homosexuality.
While there are some opponents (like that jackass Fred Phelps) whose opposition is blatantly based on hatred, his perspective is not typical; see hate the sin, love the sinner. --Ed Poor Talk 09:31, 22 November 2007 (EST)
Personal tools