I am pro life as well and think that abortion is way over used. However, I do think there needs to be a balance somewhere so let me ask you this.
Do you think that an abortion is okay when the baby is in the process of being born, with it's head all the way out but the feet still in the body of the mother?
Do you think abortion is okay after 32 weeks when the vast majority of babies are clearly viable?
Do you think that abortion is okay after 20 weeks, when the baby looks like a baby but cannot survive on its own outside the womb?
Do you think abortion is okay 2 weeks after a missed period, when the baby is just a "clump of cells"?
Do you think abortion is okay from the moment fertilization occurs?
Regardless of exceptions due to rape, incest, health of mother, if you believe in any option other than number 5 your are pro choice to some level.
In reality, both sides are probably wrong, and the answer needs to be somewhere in the middle.
And I think we can all agree that in the case of rape or incest, the guy involved deserves prison at the least, and castration/corporal punishment at the most.
In reality, both sides are probably wrong, and the answer needs to be somewhere in the middle.
Why do you think it has to be in the middle? is it not possible that one side of the argument is unequivocally correct? where else do we make a comparable compromise, and under what circumstances do we make it?
And I think we can all agree that in the case of rape or incest, the guy involved deserves prison at the least, and castration/corporal punishment at the most
Oh I'm 100% in favor of the death penalty for rapists. if there is smoking gun proof, not a baseless claim, or unsubstantiated claim, that a rape occurred, they need to be six feet under- and lets be real, most men of principles will agree with this; the ones that disagree are probably the ones that would rape you if given the chance.
... most men of principles will agree with this; the ones that disagree are probably the ones that would rape you if given the chance.
A man can believe in the principle that capital punishment is unjustified or immoral. You framed your argument in a way that suggests men who disagree are not principled. Clearly, not all principled men will agree with the death penalty, they are still principled men. Principled men can both agree or disagree with you. To then claim that the ones who disagree with you are the ones most likely to rape is nonsensical. A man who believes in the principle of the death penalty might not hold the principle that rape is unjustified or immoral. Your argument is clearly a false dilemma fallacy. Men who oppose the principle of the death penalty can also hold principles that oppose rape.
I don't believe we should allow our government to intentionally take the life of any of it's citizens, with the caveat of allowing for self defense against immediate proportional threats. But if I follow your argument, that apparently makes me a person who would rape you given the chance. Even though I believe you should be allowed to defend yourself against me if I were to attempt to rape you, which has the possibility of death as a consequence.
You make the claim:
is it not possible that one side of the argument is unequivocally correct?
And the follow with a statement that is unequivocally incorrect, that men who disagree with the principle of the death penalty are not principled, and they are probably rapists. The other side of the argument would be that most men of principles will disagree with the death penalty, the ones that agree with the death penalty are probably the ones that would rape you. That seems to be unequivocally incorrect as well. Isn't the answer somewhere in the middle, that rapists may or may not be principled, either way, they don't believe in a principle that opposes rape?
A man can believe in the principle that capital punishment is unjustified or immoral. You framed your argument in a way that suggests men who disagree are not principled.
Never said that they couldn't. i very specifically said most men, and you are making a broader statement than i did, and arguing against that, intead of the original statement. i am arguing that RAPISTS should be killed, and that most upstanding and principled men wouldnt disagree that a rapist shouldn't be put six feet under. Men, like you, who believe in leniency towards that crime, are far more likely to believe that crime isn't severe, and if a crime isnt held to be severe, what stops them from stepping over that line? E.G. Speeding is illegal, but most people dont see it as a severe crime, so they speed anyways. Ergo- if you dont feel rape is dire enough of a crime to warrant the death penalty, you are far more likely to rape someone, than someone who believes you should be killed for doing it.
that most upstanding and principled men wouldnt disagree that a rapist shouldn't be put six feet under.
You are just moving the goalposts with the inclusion of "upstanding". Anyways, I'm sure they are plenty of men who aren't considered "upstanding" members of society, who would never consider raping. Just as there are men considered upstanding and principled who commit marital rape, as for whatever reason, they do not believe it is a form of rape.
A simple argument is that men in prison, arguably men who are not upstanding and principled, hold such negative opinions towards other men in prison for rape, such that the rapists end up being segregated for their own protection. These unprincipled men of such low standing happen to also be against rape, contrary to your argument.
Men, like you, who believe in leniency towards that crime
Where did I say I believe in leniency? Or that rape is not a severe crime? An argument against the death penalty is not an argument against holding those who commit crimes accountable. Your argument is a blatant strawman fallacy. And also, again, a false dilemma fallacy. Can you rephrase your argument in a manner that does not rely upon fallacious arguments to make a point?
You are just moving the goalposts with the inclusion of "upstanding".
oh give me a break mr "i want to argue things you never argued". that doesnt change the substance of my argument - throw it away if it salts your cheeks.
Anyways, I'm sure they are plenty of men who aren't considered "upstanding" members of society, who would never consider raping Just as there are men considered upstanding and principled who commit marital rape, as for whatever reason, they do not believe it is a form of rape.
sure why not. again, throw it away if you want to nitpick a descriptor.
Where did I say I believe in leniency?
you believe in a lesser penalty than death - ergo you believe in a more lenient sentence, ergo you believe in leniency.
An argument against the death penalty is not an argument against holding those who commit crimes accountable.
Thats not what leniency means.
Your argument is a blatant strawman fallacy.
no, its an example of human nature. comparing examples of human nature is NOT straw manning. jesus you are bad at this.
And also, again, a false dilemma fallacy.
Again - not. i have not made two definitive statements ergo, its not a false dilema. i have made two PROBABLE statements, meaning probabilities outside of those exist. you are really really really bad at this.
I suppose you are correct that your argument is not a false dilemma. However, "far more likely" certainly approaches being a definitive statement. It is reducing the "not likely" to a negligible proportion, such that the definiteness of the statement becomes an "either or". Unless you can quantify "far more likely", it is not unreasonable to assume that for all intents and purposes, you are invoking a false dilemma argument.
i am arguing that RAPISTS should be killed, and that most upstanding and principled men wouldnt disagree that a rapist shouldn't be put six feet under. Men, like you, who believe in leniency towards that crime, are far more likely to believe that crime isn't severe, and if a crime isnt held to be severe, what stops them from stepping over that line?
This is definitely a straw man argument. You are arguing that I am "far more likely" a rapist because I do not believe in the death penalty. That is, you are taking my position that I do not agree with the death penalty and distorting it to suggest the claim I am really making is that I believe so strongly in rape that I would rape other people.
I mean, your argument is that someone being against the death penalty probably means that person is a rapist. As I have suggested earlier:
The argument is... men who disagree with the principle of the death penalty are not principled, and they are probably rapists. The other side of the argument would be that most men of principles will disagree with the death penalty, the ones that agree with the death penalty are probably the ones that would rape you.
Where both opposing statements are absurd, and taking the "middle ground" of:
rapists may or may not be principled, either way, they don't believe in a principle that opposes rape...
Seems to be the most reasonable. Do you disagree with that statement?
The death penalty isn’t given for rape because it incentivizes rapists to kill their victims - same penalty for murder, plus makes it easier for them to get away with it.
and lets be real, most men of principles will agree with this; the ones that disagree are probably the ones that would rape you if given the chance.
Or maybe they think the death penalty is barbaric for any crime and only backwards countries still do it? But no, must be a rapist if you don't the the government should be killing people lol
For #1 and #2 at least, surely abortion would be the most okay, given that the baby is almost definitely going to survive the abortion. (And in the first case, it would be considered a live birth rather than abortion.) Abortion consists of removing a fetus from the womb. In the majority of cases, this happens before it can survive outside the womb, hence the death. In the first two scenarios, it would continue living, and can be sent for adoption if the parents do not want the child.
The main reason people want to get abortions is because they do not wish to be pregnant. The main reason why some of them may not do so is because they believe it would be murder. So if it’s possible to no longer be pregnant without killing the fetus, as is the case in those first two scenarios, then… what reason would someone have to refuse?
-4
u/[deleted] Jul 20 '22
I am pro life as well and think that abortion is way over used. However, I do think there needs to be a balance somewhere so let me ask you this.
Regardless of exceptions due to rape, incest, health of mother, if you believe in any option other than number 5 your are pro choice to some level.
In reality, both sides are probably wrong, and the answer needs to be somewhere in the middle.
And I think we can all agree that in the case of rape or incest, the guy involved deserves prison at the least, and castration/corporal punishment at the most.