Amazing medical visualizations.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fKyljukBE70
This is what is killed during an abortion. It is not a blob...not just tissue...it is human, it is a person from the start. Picture an abortionist....ramming a suction tube up a woman and tearing the unborn apart. And for those who think this killing should be legal until the ninth month...well....it shows the humanity of what is being killed....clear pictures and actions of the life in the womb.
and I don't recall anyone saying anything other than it is human .. still don't see how it relates to debates on abortion.
Probably the only thing you have put up on this site I have enjoyed looking at. By the way I'm still pro-abortion.
It certainly is human, but it isnt a person 'from the start', else that renders the word person with a rather limited description; one I dont accept nor am compelled by. You mean a doctor? Yeah... so? Yeah.. so? Of course its human - but so what? I'm sorry but your emotional rhetoric is just boring.
Yes, pro-choicers know that the fetus is a human. However, they try to rationalize the horrible act of abortion by saying that it's "self defense" or a "woman's right". Churchmouse is just trying to remind you about how horrible abortion is. Sometimes, showing people the emotional side of things can help them to stop rationalizing and justifying what they believe in, which in this case, is you trying to justify abortions.
Do you know how horrible chemotherapy is? It's awful, horrible, it makes people literally sick and it can go on for months and even years. Should we stop giving people the option of having chemotherapy just because it's so horrible? No. And emotional fallacy is not a good enough reason to stop it, just like emotional fallacy will never be a good enough reason to deny women abortions, because that's all you have, emotional fallacy, not facts.
Appeals to emotions are not arguments - they are fallacious. We want an argument against abortion from you guys not repetitive and clearly unproductive emotional rhetoric.
Chemo has nothing to do with abortion. Discussion derailment! - - - Updated - - - It's just plain wrong. I shouldn't even have to explain this to you.
I was making a comparison. Chemotherapy is a medical procedure just like abortion is a medical procedure. But any emotional rhetoric you come up with for either or any medical procedure for that matter does not a good argument make.
Do all pro-lifers think that pro-choicers are just confused about what abortion is and THAT'S why they support it or is that something unique to yourself?
So if it's just some tissue, then what if the woman is in a coma and pregnant? If abortion and delivering the baby are to be considered on equal footing in a woman's choice, then what happens when she is in a coma before she has made that choice? Can her spouse then make the choice for her to remove the tissue for whatever reason? If not, why is the default choice for a woman in a coma to deliver instead of abort?
This probably stems from the misconception that pregnancy is a "good thing" regardless of the circumstances (though it is good to see that the status quo is changing with courts now defining some pregnancies as literal injuries) Question, if it was found that this hypothetical pregnant woman in a coma were to have a better chance of recover should the zef be aborted would they do it or not?
If abortion and delivering the baby are to be considered on equal footing in a woman's choice, then what happens when she is in a coma before she has made that choice? Very interesting question. I would say yes provided he could give some form of evidence (perhaps the fact he is her spouse is enough) to show he accurately knows what her choice would be. There is no default choice. Great question
But itself is not a direct appeal to emotions. No calling you sexist or whatever IS ad hominem so his argument is still fallacious and I agree with you that that is not something you should have to cop.
don't agree an ad hominem item is an attack against the person that is irrelevant to the issue, sexism is not irrelevant to the issue it shows the underlying agenda of those who portray it.
No, an ad hominem is an attack on a person and not their argument - it doesn't matter if it is irrelevant or not. Ad hominem means 'to the man'.
