I've had an epiphany

[Czernobog]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

 

[BluesLegend]

Oh you demonstrated intellectual dishonesty alright.

 

[Doc1]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

Well aren't you just the legend in your own mind

 

[Indeependent]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

I fall asleep when reading your pomposity so I can't get ang....................

 

[LoneLaugher]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

I believe it would help to describe the experiment.

Is it the one about a child vs 1000's of embryos in a fire? If so, it is expected that no answer will be offered.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I answered and said that the guy should post on social media that the "Putin Hacked the election" evidence was hidden in the embryos and the building was going up in flames

 

[Indeependent]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

I believe it would help to describe the experiment.

Is it the one about a child vs 1000's of embryos in a fire? If so, it is expected that no answer will be offered.

Lots of people answered last week's Atheism Question Of The Week.
When Mr. Brave Beyond All Belief Atheist doesn't get the response his all so bloated Ego desires, he claims no one responded and simply repeats the same Atheism Question Of The Week all over again.

 

[The Original Tree]

Does the dumbass OP even know that FETUS is LATIN FOR BABY?
Just another word game for Eugenics Proponents, and their favorite past time of discussing Genocide like it was a baseball game.

 

[Indeependent]

Does the dumbass OP even know that FETUS is LATIN FOR BABY?
Just another word game for Eugenics Proponents, and their favorite past time of discussing Genocide like it was a baseball game.

Don't upset snoozenboggeddown.

 

[Czernobog]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

I believe it would help to describe the experiment.

Is it the one about a child vs 1000's of embryos in a fire? If so, it is expected that no answer will be offered.

It is, and very few were. Even those who answered tried to insist that it proved nothing, and I constantly had to explain the difference between intrinsic moral value, and relative moral value. I also was accused repeatedly of trying to force abortionists to change their stance on abortion. I honestly didn't see it that way.

It wasn't until one of the people I was engaging immediately altered his argument, when I finally got him to understand the importance of relative moral value, to "killing them is different from just letting them die" That was when I realised that this false moral equivalency is the only argument against legalised abortion they have, and forcing them to give that up, effectively does force them to alter their position. Which is why they cling so desperately to the false equivalency.

 

[Indeependent]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

I believe it would help to describe the experiment.

Is it the one about a child vs 1000's of embryos in a fire? If so, it is expected that no answer will be offered.

It is, and very few were. Even those who answered tried to insist that it proved nothing, and I constantly had to explain the difference between intrinsic moral value, and relative moral value. I also was accused repeatedly of trying to force abortionists to change their stance on abortion. I honestly didn't see it that way.

It wasn't until one of the people I was engaging immediately altered his argument, when I finally got him to understand the importance of relative moral value, to "killing them is different from just letting them die" That was when I realised that this false moral equivalency is the only argument against legalised abortion they have, and forcing them to give that up, effectively does force them to alter their position. Which is why they cling so desperately to the false equivalency.

And just for your information...colonoscopy is not spelled epiphany.

 

[Ringel05]

I've had an epiphany

Well don't get any on me!!! And use toilet paper next time!!!! And flush!!!!

(Don't forget to wash your hands.)

 

[Czernobog]

Does the dumbass OP even know that FETUS is LATIN FOR BABY?
Just another word game for Eugenics Proponents, and their favorite past time of discussing Genocide like it was a baseball game.

You do know what an appeal to definition fallacy is, right? if not, I included a link to help you see where you went wrong.

 

[Czernobog]

I've had an epiphany

Well don't get any on me!!! And use toilet paper next time!!!! And flush!!!!

(Don't forget to wash your hands.)

LOL! Fuck you!!! That was cute

 

[Indeependent]

Does the dumbass OP even know that FETUS is LATIN FOR BABY?
Just another word game for Eugenics Proponents, and their favorite past time of discussing Genocide like it was a baseball game.

You do know what an appeal to definition fallacy is, right? if not, I included a link to help you see where you went wrong.

He went wrong by addressing you in a mature manner.

 

[The Original Tree]

Does the dumbass OP even know that FETUS is LATIN FOR BABY?
Just another word game for Eugenics Proponents, and their favorite past time of discussing Genocide like it was a baseball game.

You do know what an appeal to definition fallacy is, right? if not, I included a link to help you see where you went wrong.

I emailed your parents to help them see where they went wrong when they neglected to abort you.

 

[Czernobog]

I answered and said that the guy should post on social media that the "Putin Hacked the election" evidence was hidden in the embryos and the building was going up in flames

I remember. I chose to politely ignore your non-sequitur.

 

[Indeependent]

Does the dumbass OP even know that FETUS is LATIN FOR BABY?
Just another word game for Eugenics Proponents, and their favorite past time of discussing Genocide like it was a baseball game.

You do know what an appeal to definition fallacy is, right? if not, I included a link to help you see where you went wrong.

I emailed your parents to help them see where they went wrong when they neglected to abort you.

Be careful, you can mention dead fetuses but not relatives.

 

[Meathead]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

Here I thought you were going to acknowledge that you're an asshole.

 

[Indeependent]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

Here I thought you were going to acknowledge that you're an asshole.

He did...in his own way.