Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Essay:Political arguments favoring abortion on demand (view source)
Revision as of 04:21, November 21, 2007
, 04:21, November 21, 2007Exposing the tangled reasoning. Hi, Andy!
: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]].
: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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 23:21, 20 November 2007 (EST)