Talk:Essay:Political arguments favoring abortion on demand - Revision history

Ed Poor: rebuttal to Gridley

2007-11-22T14:31:06Z

rebuttal to Gridley

Gridley at 04:25, November 21, 2007

2007-11-21T04:25:32Z

Ed Poor: Exposing the tangled reasoning. Hi, Andy!

2007-11-21T04:21:38Z

Exposing the tangled reasoning. Hi, Andy!

Ed Poor: circular argument

2007-11-21T04:16:53Z

circular argument

Ed Poor: Talk:Essay:Constitutional Arguments on Choice moved to Talk:Essay:Political arguments favoring abortion on demand: It's not about "choice" in general but about the specific choice to terminate a pregnancy for reasons other than "mommy might di

2007-11-21T04:12:21Z

Talk:Essay:Constitutional Arguments on Choice moved to Talk:Essay:Political arguments favoring abortion on demand: It's not about "choice" in general but about the specific choice to terminate a pregnancy for reasons other than "mommy might di

Aschlafly: Talk:Constitutional Arguments on Choice moved to Talk:Essay:Constitutional Arguments on Choice: move to essay space where it belongs

2007-07-27T16:30:42Z

Talk:Constitutional Arguments on Choice moved to Talk:Essay:Constitutional Arguments on Choice: move to essay space where it belongs

Learn together: New page: 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 d...

2007-07-08T22:19:35Z

New page: 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 d...

New page

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. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:19, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:31, November 22, 2007
Line 13:		Line 13:
	: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)		: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)
	::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? --[[User:Gridley\|Gridley]] 23:25, 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? --[[User:Gridley\|Gridley]] 23:25, 20 November 2007 (EST)
		+
		+	:So glad you asked. :-)
		+
		+	:Here's the argument, laid out like a proof in [[formal logic]]:
		+	:#Irrational opposition should be disregarded.
		+	:#Opposition to homosexuality is a phobia.
		+	:#Phobia means irrational hate or fear.
		+	:#Opposition to homosexuality is irrational (2, 3)
		+	:#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 [[premise]]s.
		+
		+	: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]]. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:31, 22 November 2007 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:25, November 21, 2007
Line 12:		Line 12:

	: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)		: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)
		+	::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? --[[User:Gridley\|Gridley]] 23:25, 20 November 2007 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:21, November 21, 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:

	: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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:16, November 21, 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	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. [[User:Learn together\|Learn together]] 18:19, 8 July 2007 (EDT)		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. [[User:Learn together\|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]].

← Older revision	Revision as of 04:12, November 21, 2007
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 16:30, July 27, 2007
(No difference)