Talk:Essay:Political arguments favoring abortion on demand
From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gridley (Talk | contribs) at 04:25, November 21, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.
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)
