Life Unworthy of Life alert

Re: Welfare vs Abortion.
It's pretty obvious that: a) Any reasonable payments will be unable to eliminate those 25% completely.
b) For someone seing abortion as completely unacceptable behavior, that reduction (0%-25% depending on the variables involved) is seen as unsatisfactory. An outright and enforced ban is likely to achieve a much larger reduction. dobeln Hmmmmmm, welfare, where in the heck did welfare come into this discussion? We're talking about funding children. If you look at the link I provided it isn't hard to come to the conclusion that universal health care would have a much greater impact than just a twenty five percent. When you consider the message of healthcare these days is leaning heavily towards education and preventive medicine we could see some of the other reasons for aborting either becoming a mute point or having a viable alternative to abortion. With preventitive medicine initiatives we'd most likely see more effective sexual education. This in itself could make a big dent in the largest reason given for having an abortion, mother too young and unprepared for the daunting task of parenting. Again, removing abortion as an option via a law is in effect an unfunded mandate imposed upon women. It's an unfair and inequal mandate targeting one specific group, women capable of childbirth. The burden is especially harsh on those least able to bear it, the poor. We also have to keep in mind this is not unlike the Islamic veil in some middle east countries. It's a faith based mandate for believers and non-believers alike. If one believes life starts at birth then anti-abortion is an imposition of another's faith upon their own.

M_David, since when is it a personal attack to say that someone s logic is inadequate? Isn t that what you were just doing to watsy? This was quite a lengthy exchange, with watsy answering your questions repeatedly and in some detail. I don t think it would be of much interest to any other readers for me to pick it over line by line, so I m afraid I must decline your request to give you all points I had logic or clarity problems with. I will give you a couple of examples, though. watsy wrote a long, nuanced post, and you boiled it down to the following: 1) Unborn babies have a right to life!?2) Mothers have a right to kill unborn babies (with a doctors help only!)?3) But only before 10 weeks!?4) But exceptions for crazy mothers!?5) The government has no right to say anything about it though! Your use of incomplete sentences, exclamation marks that were not present in the original, and inadequate punctuation, in effect makes a mockery of her original writing. In addition, you put her statements out of order and out of context, and you have changed the wording.
For instance, where watsy brought up a serious problem for consideration--the mother has a history of psychosis that's controlled on a slew of antipsychotics, but the antipsychotics aren't to be given during pregnancy--you substitute crazy mothers. Most people involved with mental illness avoid the word crazy because it has pejorative connotations and is unclear, since it can mean a person who acts weirdly or inappropriately in addition to being slang for a mentally ill person. It s like calling someone with physical disabilities a gimp. This IS a misrepresentation of what she said. watsy clearly explained that she believes the fetus has a right to life, but that it is not an absolute right to life, since it is limited by some considerations, like a risk to the life of the mother. By limiting your version to The fetus has a right to life! and truncating it there, you make it appear that she first granted an absolute right and then contradicted herself. In fact, she never granted an absolute right to life in the first place, so it is not illogical for her to place limits on that right. You may not agree with her, but she is consistent with her own statements.
The government has no right to say anything about it though is also, clearly, NOT what she said, and she corrected you on that point herself, but you did not acknowledge that. If you ask for correction, and your correspondent does correct you, and you then ignore them, it calls your sincerity into question. Where you were quoting her actual words, I had no problem with it, but when you began to substitute your own changed and abbreviated versions, and then to substitute letters and numbers, I think you veered off into creating an inaccurate strawman argument, from which you then drew increasingly inaccurate conclusions. When you substitute your own words for the words of your opponent, then draw conclusions from these invented premises and ascribe them to the original statement, you are misrepresenting and you are misusing logic. It s better to stick to arguing with what people have actually said. ? I think that s enough to serve as an example. I thought you were doing it willfully, because you appear to have a good mind, so I assumed you were able to understand watsy as well as I did. But I admit it was an assumption, and possibly an unwarranted one, so I will be happy to retract the willfully if you like.