"bad-Life-Anyway" Irrelevant Nonsense Argument

[mymistake]

_

[Yrth]

Browse the thread a bit to see what you've been missing.

Can you make an argument?

It feels mean talking about this with you. The OP and responses should clarify what you're missing.

[mymistake]

What's funny to me, pockets, is that a common anti-choice argument against abortion is "That fetus could be the next Einstein/Michael Jordan/cure for cancer/etc." The "bad life" is the direct way to counter that laughable tactic. Its not hard to figure that out.

That's why bad-life argument is a bad-argument, because by reversing it as you did, it becomes very obvious.

 

So if it turns out that fetus are human life then . . .

 

1 - The mother always has to do all in her power to bring it to birth no matter what.

2 - Police must investigate every woman's menstruation to see if a person died and determine the cause.

3 - We must all procreate until our planet can't support us anymore and then enjoy the die out.

 

I don't like those answers. That doesn't sound reasonable to me. How can a fetus be human and not reach those conclusions.

[mymistake]

_

[Yrth]

It feels mean talking about this with you. The OP and responses should clarify what you're missing.

 

You insult like a child and use emotes rather than make arguments.

 

The terrorists in the example you provided - were they the mothers of their victims? No so you ignored the conditions. That makes your analogy and overgeneralization. Now you are very good at using profanity and smilies but can you explain where the moral obligation comes from?

 

You are going to give me more emotes aren't you?

You are the source of this rant. Your thickness regarding this point.

 

I'm not making an argument for or against abortion. What I'm saying is that generally, in abortion debates, the starting premise of one side is that a fetus is a person like you and me. So, to debate with someone holding that position, you would need to either attack the premise or offer arguments that are consistent with it. One argument that is incoherent with that premise is the bad-life-anyway argument. It's pointless to even bring it up without first addressing the premise. That's it in a nutshell.

 

Now, don't start arguing with the premise, because I'm not arguing for or against that premise. I'm pointing out something about abortion debates and the logical relevancy of certain arguments.

[Ouroboros]

I think you're making a good point. Asserting the future life of a fetus is to claim a premise that the fetus is a person. It's a bad argument for pro-choice. Agree.

 

May I ask why?

Simple logic.

 

There are good and bad choices of arguments for or against a position. The argument that is based on that a fetus is a person with a future miserable life is a bad choice of argument to support pro-choice. Just like it's a bad choice to argue that the fetus is a person with an extraordinary future to support pro-life. Since either option can be known, neither option is valid as a premise.

 

We don't know the future. However the mother has the best perspective for estimating. Will some mothers guess wrong? Of course. But when their judgement is that bad maybe we shouldn't force them to have children.

Exactly. That's why it's a bad argument to use to support pro-choice. We can't say "this argument is great because the mother could be wrong!" It's like selling a product and announce that it could explode but no one knows.

 

It's not about punishment. Abortion isn't a punishment. I take it you have not had a thousand children. Why not? You would deny 99.99% of your possible children all those wonderful lives and those megacorporations?

Making the claim that abortion is right because the fetus is a person with a crappy future... is a bad argument. This has nothing to do with taking stand for or against abortion or pro-choice. This thread is about the issue of one single argument that is used for pro-choice, and this argument is not a good one.

[mymistake]

_

[Ouroboros]

What's funny to me, pockets, is that a common anti-choice argument against abortion is "That fetus could be the next Einstein/Michael Jordan/cure for cancer/etc." The "bad life" is the direct way to counter that laughable tactic. Its not hard to figure that out.

That's why bad-life argument is a bad-argument, because by reversing it as you did, it becomes very obvious.

 

So if it turns out that fetus are human life then . . .

 

1 - The mother always has to do all in her power to bring it to birth no matter what.

2 - Police must investigate every woman's menstruation to see if a person died and determine the cause.

3 - We must all procreate until our planet can't support us anymore and then enjoy the die out.

 

I don't like those answers. That doesn't sound reasonable to me. How can a fetus be human and not reach those conclusions.

Eeeeehhh... You're missing the point with a lightyear... this discussion is NOT about abortion or not. It is NOT about pro-choice, pro-life, pro-... anti-... or not even the war on Christmas...

 

It's only about if that argument is a good argument for pro-choice. And it's not a good argument. Pro-choice has other arguments that are better, but this is not one of them.

[mymistake]

_

[Yrth]

I'm not making an argument for or against abortion. What I'm saying is that generally, in abortion debates, the starting premise of one side is that a fetus is a person like you and me. So, to debate with someone holding that position, you would need to either attack the premise or offer arguments that are consistent with it.

 

Why? (cue the emote/insult spam again.)

If you don't take account of your opponent's premise, you will just talk past one another. What you say will be irrelevant. The premise is taken as a given, so you must either attack the premise or present an argument that is consistent with it in order to persuade her.

 

For example, a Christian premise is that the Bible is infallible. There is a debate over whether the Old Testament story about the sun pausing in the sky is accurate. You could present the collective wisdom of modern astronomy to support your side, but none of it will matter to the person who has already assumed that what the Bible says is accurate. To persuade her, you would need an argument consistent with the premise (in this case, a wishy-washy biblical interpretation argument) or attack the premise (that the Bible is infallible). It's not a perfect analogy because the modern astronomy itself is a side-attack on the premise of infallibility.

 

One argument that is incoherent with that premise is the bad-life-anyway argument. It's pointless to even bring it up without first addressing the premise. That's it in a nutshell.

 

Now, don't start arguing with the premise, because I'm not arguing for or against that premise. I'm pointing out something about abortion debates and the logical relevancy of certain arguments.

 

You are making bald assertions and misbehaving if others do not start out already in agreement with you. I'm listening but you are not communicating anything but contempt.

Listen harder. Also notice that *people are pretty much on the same page here except you.

[mymistake]

Listen harder. Also notice that there really are no "others."

 

What did I do to deserve your wrath?

[Yrth]

Listen harder.

What did I do to deserve your wrath?

Two defensive positions + some mutual aggression + 100% internet anonymity. To be fair, I didn't name you in the OP, you came in here guns blazing.

[mymistake]

Listen harder.

What did I do to deserve your wrath?

Two defensive positions + some mutual aggression + 100% internet anonymity. To be fair, I didn't name you in the OP, you came in here guns blazing.

 

Have I ever called you a name? I came here defending an idea. You are not an idea. Yes you started a new thread specifically about what I said. But then you went strait to insults. I think you have something against me personally. If you want to get it off your chest then let's hear it. If you would rather keep it to yourself and continue on passive aggressive that it your call. What mutual aggression? The only ill will I have for you is what you created in this thread.

[Yrth]

Listen harder.

What did I do to deserve your wrath?

Two defensive positions + some mutual aggression + 100% internet anonymity. To be fair, I didn't name you in the OP, you came in here guns blazing.

 

Have I ever called you a name? I came here defending an idea. You are not an idea. Yes you started a new thread specifically about what I said. But then you went strait to insults. I think you have something against me personally. If you want to get it off your chest then let's hear it. If you would rather keep it to yourself and continue on passive aggressive that it your call. What mutual aggression? The only ill will I have for you is what you created in this thread.

You're not the only person using the bad-life-anyway argument. I don't have anything against you personally, not really. It's all limited to you not getting what I'm even saying before diving into it headlong. It's just prolonged frustration badly handled. I'm sorry for anything that was a personal attack, that's not what I want to write on this board.

[Ro-bear]

 

Stepping briefly onto path 1, it should be obvious why the bad-life-anyway argument fails instantly. Having a bad future never entitles other people to kill you. Under the right conditions, you might be entitled to kill yourself, but no one would ever make that decision for you. On this path, bombing a daycare center makes you a terrorist and a mass murderer.

 

 

Ironic that a thread complaining about a weak argument (I agree with you on that, by the way) presents another weak one. Are you really trying to deny yours is a slippery slope argument? Call it path or call it slope; it's the same thing. Yours is almost a perfect example of a slippery slope fallacy.

 

But as for your complaint, you are right in seeing it as beside the point. For me, the abortion debate boils down to this: the woman has rights, and the fetus does not. And I see absolutely no reason to change that.

[Yrth]

Stepping briefly onto path 1, it should be obvious why the bad-life-anyway argument fails instantly. Having a bad future never entitles other people to kill you. Under the right conditions, you might be entitled to kill yourself, but no one would ever make that decision for you. On this path, bombing a daycare center makes you a terrorist and a mass murderer.

 

 

Ironic that a thread complaining about a weak argument (I agree with you on that, by the way) presents another weak one. Are you really trying to deny yours is a slippery slope argument? Call it path or call it slope; it's the same thing. Yours is almost a perfect example of a slippery slope fallacy.

 

But as for your complaint, you are right in seeing it as beside the point. For me, the abortion debate boils down to this: the woman has rights, and the fetus does not. And I see absolutely no reason to change that.

I don't even see the slope. Btw, I meant to write 'a daycare center in Camden, NJ', if that helps.

[Ramen666]

The "bad life" argument boils down to this from the pro-choice side:

 

1. A fetus is not an "unborn child"

2. The fetus/unborn child will have a bad life anyway, so it is ok to kill it.

 

Therefore they a doing exactly what they claim the pro-life side does, asigning value to the fetus/"unborn child". They are giving it is a value, lesser one than the pro-life side, but still giving the fetus a value.

[Guest Valk0010]

If you can't understand this simple, basic point about abortion discussions, you shouldn't be having one.

 

*edited for clarity

And the award for the most smelly male bovine excrement goes tooooooo

 

There is such a thing, as considering the logical consequences of a position. And as far as I am concerned, that applies to abortion. How that relates to others views on abortion, I dunno. But I can speak for myself. Forcing misery on someone isn't something I want on my conscious.

[Ramen666]

Turning a blind eye to legalized murder/killing is something I don't want on my conscious. I will defend the ones who can't defend themselves.

[Guest Valk0010]

Turning a blind eye to legalized murder/killing is something I don't want on my conscious. I will defend the ones who can't defend themselves.

If you got two evils, what to you do. The lesser.

[SilentLoner]

Turning a blind eye to legalized murder/killing is something I don't want on my conscious. I will defend the ones who can't defend themselves.

 

We got it who-knows-how-many-abortion-related-threads ago, Ramen

[Yrth]

If you can't understand this simple, basic point about abortion discussions, you shouldn't be having one.

 

*edited for clarity

And the award for the most smelly male bovine excrement goes tooooooo

 

There is such a thing, as considering the logical consequences of a position. And as far as I am concerned, that applies to abortion. How that relates to others views on abortion, I dunno. But I can speak for myself. Forcing misery on someone isn't something I want on my conscious.

On your what? What are you even saying here? I can't understand you. I'm not trying to be mean, in fact I'm trying not to be mean, so if you had a point please rephrase it for me in plain English.

[blackpudd1n]

This is a rant about one argument that exists in the current abortion thread. I'd appreciate it if responders would limit the scope of their replies to comments about this specific argument.

 

Here is what drives me crazy: arguments that abortion is partly justified by the fact that a kid "would have had a bad life anyway," the "bad-life-anyway" argument.

 

It's just not relevant in abortion debates where the moral relevance of a fetus is being contested. This is an extremely simple point, but, apparently, people are capable of missing it entirely.

 

People disagree about the moral relevance of the fetus. A basic point about abortion discussions is that, *generally, one side believes that a fetus = person like you and me. From this starting point, abortion debate can take only one of two paths: 1. Looking at how abortions may be justified when a fetus = a person like you and me, or 2. debating whether a fetus is a person like you and me. That's it.

 

Stepping briefly onto path 1, it should be obvious why the bad-life-anyway argument fails instantly. Having a bad future never entitles other people to kill you. Under the right conditions, you might be entitled to kill yourself, but no one would ever make that decision for you. On this path, bombing a daycare center makes you a terrorist and a mass murderer.

 

It should be clear by now that the bad-life-anyway argument is completely irrelevant to someone who thinks a fetus is a person like you and me. It has zero currency as a justification under this framework. In order to use it, you would first need to debate whether a fetus is a person like you and me.

 

If you skip *debating the premise, you risk looking like someone who thinks its OK to slit a random pedestrian's throat if you think their life isn't worth living.

 

If you can't understand this simple, basic point about abortion discussions, you shouldn't be having one.

 

*edited for clarity

 

Clearly you have never had the joy of being in foster care. I dare say you have not watched child after child being born into a family for the sake of welfare benefits, only to be neglescted, abused, and mistreated while mum and whichever dad piss and shoot up the grocery money and be taken one by one and put into the system. I take it that you have not seen with your own eyes the daily struggle and hardship that those children experience, wondering why mummy doesn't want them, why they can't go home. The hurt they feel when they realise that mum's too off the planet to give a fuck about them. For these children, their mother having an abortion would have been too decent a thing to do.

 

I care little for your ideological arguments. I have lived with these children in the system, I have seen the reality, I continue to see it as I see these children in their adulthood, and watched as the cycle continues. Abortion would have been too decent an act.

[Yrth]

This is a rant about one argument that exists in the current abortion thread. I'd appreciate it if responders would limit the scope of their replies to comments about this specific argument.

 

Here is what drives me crazy: arguments that abortion is partly justified by the fact that a kid "would have had a bad life anyway," the "bad-life-anyway" argument.

 

It's just not relevant in abortion debates where the moral relevance of a fetus is being contested. This is an extremely simple point, but, apparently, people are capable of missing it entirely.

 

People disagree about the moral relevance of the fetus. A basic point about abortion discussions is that, *generally, one side believes that a fetus = person like you and me. From this starting point, abortion debate can take only one of two paths: 1. Looking at how abortions may be justified when a fetus = a person like you and me, or 2. debating whether a fetus is a person like you and me. That's it.

 

Stepping briefly onto path 1, it should be obvious why the bad-life-anyway argument fails instantly. Having a bad future never entitles other people to kill you. Under the right conditions, you might be entitled to kill yourself, but no one would ever make that decision for you. On this path, bombing a daycare center makes you a terrorist and a mass murderer.

 

It should be clear by now that the bad-life-anyway argument is completely irrelevant to someone who thinks a fetus is a person like you and me. It has zero currency as a justification under this framework. In order to use it, you would first need to debate whether a fetus is a person like you and me.

 

If you skip *debating the premise, you risk looking like someone who thinks its OK to slit a random pedestrian's throat if you think their life isn't worth living.

 

If you can't understand this simple, basic point about abortion discussions, you shouldn't be having one.

 

*edited for clarity

 

Clearly you have never had the joy of being in foster care. I dare say you have not watched child after child being born into a family for the sake of welfare benefits, only to be neglescted, abused, and mistreated while mum and whichever dad piss and shoot up the grocery money and be taken one by one and put into the system. I take it that you have not seen with your own eyes the daily struggle and hardship that those children experience, wondering why mummy doesn't want them, why they can't go home. The hurt they feel when they realise that mum's too off the planet to give a fuck about them. For these children, their mother having an abortion would have been too decent a thing to do.

 

I care little for your ideological arguments. I have lived with these children in the system, I have seen the reality, I continue to see it as I see these children in their adulthood, and watched as the cycle continues. Abortion would have been too decent an act.

Better off dead then, are they? That's what your saying? So for you, the bad-life-anyway argument is more than just a counter to some potential life argument?

fyi, I'm not making any ideological arguments.

[Guest Valk0010]

If you can't understand this simple, basic point about abortion discussions, you shouldn't be having one.

 

*edited for clarity

And the award for the most smelly male bovine excrement goes tooooooo

 

There is such a thing, as considering the logical consequences of a position. And as far as I am concerned, that applies to abortion. How that relates to others views on abortion, I dunno. But I can speak for myself. Forcing misery on someone isn't something I want on my conscious.

On your what? What are you even saying here? I can't understand you. I'm not trying to be mean, in fact I'm trying not to be mean, so if you had a point please rephrase it for me in plain English.

My point is, think about what your beliefs do to others. If I understand you correctly, you say the abortion debate is only on the question of, is the fetus just as human as anyone else. I am saying, think about the full consequences of your position on say, the mother. If your going to have a debate over ethics, you can't really leave out a key part of the equation. Am I making better sense? Thank you for being civil btw, its appreciated.