you are trying to defend an indefensible postion where no possibility of honest argument exists
This is what's known as
Poisoning the well: a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.
Pregnancy and sex are different things
This is a strawman. Rather than leaving it at that, I will explain why its a strawman because Pale has used these strawmen against every analogy I've used.
First, let me explain what a strawman is:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Sample analogy: P is similar to Q by way of X.
X is the correlative, it is the correlative property between the two objects and the basis of the comparison between P and Q.
The unstated premise in the comparison is: P does not equal Q. (If P = Q, then it cannot be an analogy)
Example: Dogs (P) are similar to Cats (Q) in that
both are domesticated animals (
X).
Pale denies the correlative and states my unstated premise in order to dismiss the analogy: Dogs (P) and Cats (Q) are different things.
By denying the correlative (X), Pale creates a strawman argument whereby he then claims the analogy is a false one:
Incorrectly classifying an analogy false: Very often people try to refute a correct analogy as a false analogy, often saying "Well, but that's different because", and refer to an existing property that the two things in the analogy indeed do not share. In cases like this, such a refutation is merely a "false charge of fallacy".
But as analogies are comparing two different things there are always some properties that A and B do not share, so it is tempting to pull up one such difference to try to disqualify the analogy. For the purposes of the analogy, however, it is important to check if that difference is relevant for the analogy or not.
Had Pale claimed I was comparing apples to oranges, I could point out that there are similarities between the two (such as both being round, fruit, grows on trees etc.) and establishing an analogy based on the similarities makes the analogy a valid one. Denying the similarities, to claim the analogy is a false one, would be fallacious.
... welfare depends upon taking real property from one and giving it to another.
Another strawman by way of denying the correlative. The correlative in my analogy between Welfare and forced (through law) pregnancy dealt with the operational principle of one person being forced (through law) to provide for another.
Welfare is government forcing (through law) one person to provide for another. The means by which that is carried out (real property being taken from one by a middle man and given to another) is not relevant to my correlative comparison.
If this is not an acceptable definition of welfare, then someone please tell me what the word would be to describe: Government forcing (through law) one person to provide for another. If there is a word with that as its definition, I will gladly substitute that new word for welfare in my analogy.
What "force" is the child guilty of?
Strawman: It was never my contention that the child was guilty of force. I was stating that there exists a difference between remaining pregnant by the woman's consent and her remaining pregnant by rule of law (force).
What is the difference between Rape (force) and Consensual sex? The consent of the woman.
What is the difference between consensual pregnancy and a forced (through law) pregnancy? The consent of the woman.
The point I was making is that either a woman's consent matters or it does not.
So the question is: Does it matter if a woman does not want to remain pregnant?
I have made no argument for the banning of abortion?
Pale stated earlier that recognition of an unborn child as a person would necessarily mean that abortion would legally be considered murder and those involved would be prosecuted as such.
Forcing her body to do what it does naturally. Interesting. What force is applied to her body?
If a woman does not consent to being pregnant, and is barred by law from terminating the pregnancy, then she is forced (by law) to continue the pregnancy.
If there is some term, other than force, to describe someone being compelled to take an action, or abstain from an action, without that persons consent, and indeed against that persons will, then please provide me with the term and I'll use it.
Are you arguing that abortion is not killing the child?
Does the right to life extend to a "right" to be provided with everything necessary to continue living, or could a pregnant woman have an operation to sever the umbilical cord?
The child would not be killed or even physically harmed in the procedure, he would only be left to provide for himself or die as a result of his inability to provide for himself.
In a court of law, yes, what they said prior to putting their signature to the declaration and constitution doesn't amount to a hill of beans. They put their signature to certain legal principles and the principles that they legally put their signature to is their public declaration of their position. They said, in effect, "on this day and for hear after, I support this."
I didn't realize that Pale agreed with Top Gun that our founders were all slavery supporting racists.... They did sign the Constitution, which protected slavery.
Any attempt to interpret what they believed rather than take at face value what they said is the source of the destruction of the republic.
Hopefully Pale will agree to disagree on this... I cannot accept that our founders political compromises, necessary to the founding of the nation, denotes a universal support of slavery.
