WATCH: Students sign petition to legalize abortion after childbirth

[MorningGlory]

 

Ah yes, the "slippery slope" fallacy.  Let's apply it to something else...

 

The death penalty involves the deliberate taking of an adult life.  If you can convince yourself that ending an adult human life is justifiable under one set of circumstances, then what is to prevent society from accepting the next step?  Several anti-capital punishment advocates have warned of this trend, and we are seeing signs of it coming to fruition.

 

The death penalty has been around since before the beginning of recorded history.  The scenario you describe hasn't come about in all that time.  The killing of the unborn on demand has only been around for a few decades and has already progressed from rare and very early abortions to millions of abortions a year.  Some performed in the last trimester and some (the Gosnell case) after birth.  Nope; not comparable. 

[JDavis]

 

 

Ah yes, the "slippery slope" fallacy.  Let's apply it to something else...

 

The death penalty involves the deliberate taking of an adult life.  If you can convince yourself that ending an adult human life is justifiable under one set of circumstances, then what is to prevent society from accepting the next step?  Several anti-capital punishment advocates have warned of this trend, and we are seeing signs of it coming to fruition.

 

The death penalty has been around since before the beginning of recorded history.  The scenario you describe hasn't come about in all that time.  The killing of the unborn on demand has only been around for a few decades and has already progressed from rare and very early abortions to millions of abortions a year.  Some performed in the last trimester and some (the Gosnell case) after birth.  Nope; not comparable. 

 

 

This is not really accurate.  Abortion has been around for a very long time.

 

Abortion is as old as at least ancient Greece.   Aristotle even spoke on the topic.  In most of the "western" world abortion was legal prior to the "quickening" (the baby moving).

 

sadly, our history as men is filled with the killing of the unborn.

[nebula]

 

What's this debate tactic called? Dodging the issue? Diversion?

 

I'm not biting.

 

Not at all.  Tactics-wise, I'm simply taking your line of reasoning ("Look at what this person is advocating.  Aren't you shocked?") and applying it to something else.  I mean, ok...this one woman takes an extreme position.  What am I supposed to do with that information?

 

MG brought up a good point. What do you think of Gosnell killing live born babies?

 

 

 

Abortion disregards the unborn baby as a human life, and thus justify it's "elimination" or "termination" as something other than ending a human life (1st degree murder).

 

If you can convince yourself that it is not a "baby", a living human being, and that ending it's existence is justifiable in the name of "freedom" or "inconvenience", then what is to prevent society from accepting this next step? Several "pro-lifers" have warned of this trend, and we are seeing signs of it coming to fruition.

 

Laugh it off now. Let's see where we are 10 years from now.

 

Ah yes, the "slippery slope" fallacy.  Let's apply it to something else...

 

The death penalty involves the deliberate taking of an adult life.  If you can convince yourself that ending an adult human life is justifiable under one set of circumstances, then what is to prevent society from accepting the next step?  Several anti-capital punishment advocates have warned of this trend, and we are seeing signs of it coming to fruition.

 

Let me see, you would argue against the death penalty for Albert Hamilton Fish (serial killer of children and cannibal) or Ted Bundy (serial killer of women) but argue for the termination of an unborn baby whose only crime was to exist - is that correct?

[nebula]

 

MG brought up a good point. What do you think of Gosnell killing live born babies?

 

I thought it was terrible.

 

That's good.

Do you feel the same way about a baby born alive after an abortion attempt being left to die, as highlighted in this article? According to this report, it happens a lot.

 

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-08/opinions/38362423_1_viable-babies-abortion-survivor-planned-parenthood

 

 

 

Let me see, you would argue against the death penalty for Albert Hamilton Fish (serial killer of children and cannibal) or Ted Bundy (serial killer of women) but argue for the termination of an unborn baby whose only crime was to exist - is that correct?

 

No.  Please explain how in the world you ever came to that conclusion.

 

I was testing the waters. Due to the nature of your rebutals, I need to have a better sense of where you stand. The contrasting issues comes across as if you might argue against the death penalty, and I wanted this cleared up. (Thus, as you will see, I formed the statement as a question, not a fact.)

 

 

Where exactly do you stand on abortion, and how does that stand frame your purpose in entering into this discussion?

[nebula]

But you missed the point.  You had invoked the slippery slope fallacy, and I attempted to demonstrate its shortcomings by applying the same reasoning to the death penalty.  Basically, one can argue against anything by claiming some shadowy, undesirable "next step" could occur and therefore we should oppose what's in front of us now.  That's why it's a logical fallacy.

Perhaps, except that abortion advocacy has already displayed the slippery slope coming to pass.

Would society in the early 70's have conceived of the legalizing of third trimester abortions? Or even that abortion rights advocates would fight for partial-birth abortions?

While you may consider the advocates of killing of live born babies to be wackos or extremists, why is it so difficult to call them to account? Why did no one get on Gosnell sooner? Why did those working with him do as he did? And what if it is proven that more abortion clinics are doing the same?

Are you so sure this is a mere argument fallacy?

[other one]

 

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 ESV / 46 helpful votes

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

 

 

Post birth abortion??????

[nebula]

 

I don't see the slippery slope having come to pass. ...

 

I've seen things that were taboo and unthinkable in the 70's become acceptable and the norm in the 80's.

I've seen things that were taboo and unthinkable in the 80's become acceptable and the norm in the 90's.

I've seen things that were taboo and unthinkable in the 90's become acceptable and the norm in the the new millenium.

 

So I'm having a hard time accepting your assurance that we won't see this kind of shift occurring in the near future.

[ayin jade]

 

 

I don't see the slippery slope having come to pass. ...

 

I've seen things that were taboo and unthinkable in the 70's become acceptable and the norm in the 80's.

I've seen things that were taboo and unthinkable in the 80's become acceptable and the norm in the 90's.

I've seen things that were taboo and unthinkable in the 90's become acceptable and the norm in the the new millenium.

 

So I'm having a hard time accepting your assurance that we won't see this kind of shift occurring in the near future.

 

 

I have as well.

[Fez]

Nebula,

 

I'm not saying nothing will change.  I'm simply pointing out that "We must oppose X because Y and Z will follow" isn't a compelling argument against X.

I think, depending on the circumstance and fact, an argument against X may be the most effective way of stopping Y and Z.

[Guest shiloh357]

Nebula,

 

I'm not saying nothing will change.  I'm simply pointing out that "We must oppose X because Y and Z will follow" isn't a compelling argument against X.  

that is not true.   For years, no one accepted the "slippery slope argument"  that if homosexuality was accepted as normal, that pedophiles would seek the same legitimacy.   Yet today, there are pedophilia advocacy groups like NAMBLA that are now making the exact same genetic preidispoistion and orientation arguments that the gay community has been making.  Pedophiles are now claiming that their sexual desire for little boys was put there by God.

 

It took 30 years for the gays to get their genetic orientation argument to be accepted and today, most everyone under the age og 30 accepts homosexuality as a perfectly normal lifestyle.   30 years from now, the pedophiles may find the same thing.