The whole question of whether or not it is life is a red herring. Even if it was a full grown adult in there the simple fact is no one has the right to use someone else's body to sustain their own life.
Then that’s not a logical fallacy because whether or not it is a life is relevant to the argument how can it sustain a life it doesn’t have and even though the child is dependent on the mother it’s a symbiotic relationship not a parasitical one
Except it was not the child's fault that it ended up growing inside that body either.
And even if we go with your logic, that the child is somehow violating the woman's rights by existing inside her, responding to one human rights violation with another will not get you far in a debate.
Has nothing to do with fault. If a child is in the back seat of a car accident and needs your blood to stay alive, no one can force you to give it. Same thing.
Also, that's not what a symbiotic relationship is. But even if it were, again, it's a red herring.
You can just say you're mad at girls for boning other men. I already know anyway 😅
A red herring, as I understand it, is a moot but provocative argument to get people debating something that is actually irrelevant to the issue at hand. This accomplishes two things: 1) it allows the person who unleashed the red herring to avoid the topic 2) it may even allow for some victory with the red herring argument, since there is no reason anyone should be prepared to debate it.
Sure. The whole question of whether or not it is life is a red herring. Even if it was a full grown adult in there the simple fact is no one has the right to use someone else's body to sustain their own life.
No one has the right to use someone else's body to sustain their own life. Without first giving a damn good explanation for why we should carve out just this one exception, which you haven't, any other discussion is moot.
Again, no one has the right to use someone else's body to sustain their own life. Until you figure out why we should make an exception for pregnant women (and one has to first wonder why you are trying to figure such a thing out) the questions that assume fetuses do have a right to use a woman's body are not relevant. You can't assume that and then argue when life begins or whatever. You have to prove it first. Arguing that it is life and thus murder skips the step of proving pregnant women should be denied the right to bodily autonomy (because that can't be proven) thus making it a red herring.
Arguing that it is life and thus murder skips the step of proving pregnant women should be denied the right to bodily autonomy. How? And why can’t it be proven
Pretend you have no bodily autonomy. You are sitting in a hospital and some other patient needs a quart of blood. They tell you to donate yours. If you refuse and the patient dies it is murder, because you do not have the right to refuse - you do not have bodily autonomy. But bring back that bodily autonomy and it is no longer murder because you do have the right to refuse. That's what bodily autonomy means.
The link between "it is a life" and "it is murder" is bridged by the assumption "women are obligated to use their bodies to sustain a fetus." Assuming it is alive, it is still no more murder than any of the other countless examples of people refusing to help are murder. Any proof that pregnant women ought to be denied bodily autonomy would then apply to every other case of refusing to help. And maybe it should but no one is doing that.
Believe in? If they are absolute then no belief is required. Gravity is an example, yes.
But in fact I don't like to talk. I thought I was pretty clear in my original opinion. But one thing you might notice about it in particular is that it was succinct. Because I just assume people are trolling when they ask questions like these. But you didn't rise to the normal levels of hostility when I engage such questions so I gave you more complete answers.
Well it’s not always about win or lose debates I feel like it’s a waste if there isn’t so sort of understanding no matter how subtle I appreciate your replies though they were very well thought out and original
Holidays 
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
2Opinion
The whole question of whether or not it is life is a red herring. Even if it was a full grown adult in there the simple fact is no one has the right to use someone else's body to sustain their own life.
Then that’s not a logical fallacy because whether or not it is a life is relevant to the argument how can it sustain a life it doesn’t have and even though the child is dependent on the mother it’s a symbiotic relationship not a parasitical one
Except it was not the child's fault that it ended up growing inside that body either.
And even if we go with your logic, that the child is somehow violating the woman's rights by existing inside her, responding to one human rights violation with another will not get you far in a debate.
Has nothing to do with fault. If a child is in the back seat of a car accident and needs your blood to stay alive, no one can force you to give it. Same thing.
Also, that's not what a symbiotic relationship is. But even if it were, again, it's a red herring.
You can just say you're mad at girls for boning other men. I already know anyway 😅
I don’t think you know what red herring is 😳 so yea I’m just gonna dismiss myself from this conversation
A red herring, as I understand it, is a moot but provocative argument to get people debating something that is actually irrelevant to the issue at hand. This accomplishes two things:
1) it allows the person who unleashed the red herring to avoid the topic
2) it may even allow for some victory with the red herring argument, since there is no reason anyone should be prepared to debate it.
Right ! And what are we talking about?
Abortion
And? Go on
I did go on in my original opinion. Feel free to review that to see where I would go next.
No you need to say it for coherent apprehension
Sure. The whole question of whether or not it is life is a red herring. Even if it was a full grown adult in there the simple fact is no one has the right to use someone else's body to sustain their own life.
Now explain how that’s a red herring?
No one has the right to use someone else's body to sustain their own life. Without first giving a damn good explanation for why we should carve out just this one exception, which you haven't, any other discussion is moot.
The whole question of whether or not it is life is a red herring. Why? And How?
Again, no one has the right to use someone else's body to sustain their own life. Until you figure out why we should make an exception for pregnant women (and one has to first wonder why you are trying to figure such a thing out) the questions that assume fetuses do have a right to use a woman's body are not relevant. You can't assume that and then argue when life begins or whatever. You have to prove it first. Arguing that it is life and thus murder skips the step of proving pregnant women should be denied the right to bodily autonomy (because that can't be proven) thus making it a red herring.
Arguing that it is life and thus murder skips the step of proving pregnant women should be denied the right to bodily autonomy. How? And why can’t it be proven
Pretend you have no bodily autonomy. You are sitting in a hospital and some other patient needs a quart of blood. They tell you to donate yours. If you refuse and the patient dies it is murder, because you do not have the right to refuse - you do not have bodily autonomy. But bring back that bodily autonomy and it is no longer murder because you do have the right to refuse. That's what bodily autonomy means.
The link between "it is a life" and "it is murder" is bridged by the assumption "women are obligated to use their bodies to sustain a fetus." Assuming it is alive, it is still no more murder than any of the other countless examples of people refusing to help are murder. Any proof that pregnant women ought to be denied bodily autonomy would then apply to every other case of refusing to help. And maybe it should but no one is doing that.
Final question ( really should’ve been the only question but you seem like you like to talk) do you believe in absolute truths?
Believe in? If they are absolute then no belief is required. Gravity is an example, yes.
But in fact I don't like to talk. I thought I was pretty clear in my original opinion. But one thing you might notice about it in particular is that it was succinct. Because I just assume people are trolling when they ask questions like these. But you didn't rise to the normal levels of hostility when I engage such questions so I gave you more complete answers.
Well it’s not always about win or lose debates I feel like it’s a waste if there isn’t so sort of understanding no matter how subtle I appreciate your replies though they were very well thought out and original
Abortion is murder.
Be the first girl to share an opinion
and earn 3 more Xper points!