• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trophies?

What do you want them to say?

Maybe they can call for federal background checks on the doctors who do abortions. Obviously this doctor was mentally ill and should not have been practicing.
Maybe they can call into question abortions for minors.

Maybe they can investigate his political affiliation and if a Republican blame Trump. Why not.
 
Ok. I'll try my best to help you out here. (But first -- don't try to tell me how to reply properly to someone's post -- it's insulting).

An abortionist collects the fetuses and stores them in his house. Does the possibility exist that abortionists have an ulterior motive for performing abortions? Does that help?

That's what I thought. You took it as an insult that I never meant to. When you click on reply, they get a notification that you replied so the person would know so it wouldn't be lost. So I apologize.

Ah yes now that actually help. You should have asked that in the OP.
I have no idea if collecting fetuses is the reason he became an abortionist.
 
Maybe they can call for federal background checks on the doctors who do abortions. Obviously this doctor was mentally ill and should not have been practicing.
Maybe they can call into question abortions for minors.

Maybe they can investigate his political affiliation and if a Republican blame Trump. Why not.

There are already strict rules. This guy is an outlier. I am pretty sure if he asked for permission with legit reasons, he would be able to do it. No different from gathering dead bodies for medical study.
 
Apology accepted. And I'm sorry I took it the wrong way. We good?
 
Ok. I'll try my best to help you out here. (But first -- don't try to tell me how to reply properly to someone's post -- it's insulting).

An abortionist collects the fetuses and stores them in his house. Does the possibility exist that abortionists have an ulterior motive for performing abortions? Does that help?

No not really. That is still irrelevant to the issue of abortion. A surgeon collects the cancer tumors he removed and stores them in his house. Does the possibility exist that surgeons have ulterior motives for performing abortions?

The issue is one of medical ethics and is a broader topic than abortion. By placing this topic in the abortion forum, it attempts to use the incident to disparage abortion. Furthermore, by shifting your final question's focus from the doctor in question to all abortion doctors, you call into question the motives of all as if there was a possibility that most or all abortion doctors are after more than the care of their patients. This smacks of dishonesty.

Looking up fallacies again, I will agree that this doesn't match exactly with red herring. The application is actually reversed. Maybe False Equivalency is closer. Regardless of the fallacy's actual name, the point remains that this topic touches on abortion, but is not about abortion, and is being used as an improper argument against abortion.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
An abortionist collects the fetuses and stores them in his house. Does the possibility exist that abortionists have an ulterior motive for performing abortions? Does that help?
No not really. That is still irrelevant to the issue of abortion.
Let me address this first by asking: Are you familiar with the term "springboard" in discussions? There are many instances in this forum where this technic is used. For instance:

Planned Parenthood admits selling baby body parts, reported in news story out Sept. 4, 2019.

In the above thread, the OP has more to do with journalistic malpractice than abortion (per se). I didn't wade through every page of that thread to see if you protested against it being in the abortion forum. Did you?

A surgeon collects the cancer tumors he removed and stores them in his house. Does the possibility exist that surgeons have ulterior motives for performing abortions?
Surely you can see that an argument is not being made here (in your revised version), nor in mine. An argument consists of at least one premise and a conclusion. Even if you answer yes to the question you can't draw the conclusion that therefore abortions are wrong. At best all you can conclude is that surgeons might have an ulterior motive for performing abortions other than a concern for the welfare of their patients. But please note I didn't allude to each and every surgeon having one.

Now in regards to your issue with logical fallacies. You might look at "Inductive reasoning." It might be what you're looking for.
 
An abortionist collects the fetuses and stores them in his house. Does the possibility exist that abortionists have an ulterior motive for performing abortions? Does that help?

Planned Parenthood admits selling baby body parts, reported in news story out Sept. 4, 2019.

Now in regards to your issue with logical fallacies. You might look at "Inductive reasoning." It might be what you're looking for.

What argument? There's no mention of his selling anything. No mention of monetary reasons at all.

I saw no motive given. Period.

Er, you might want to reconsider chiding other's "reasoning" abilities.
 
What argument? There's no mention of his selling anything. No mention of monetary reasons at all.

I saw no motive given. Period.

Er, you might want to reconsider chiding other's "reasoning" abilities.
Thank you for your contribution. I look forward to reading many more of them.
 
Thank you for your contribution. I look forward to reading many more of them.

It seems odd to post on a discussion forum and then avoid discussion...but you may have your own personal motivation...perhaps to be educated. Glad I can help.
 
An abortionist collects the fetuses and stores them in his house. Does the possibility exist that abortionists have an ulterior motive for performing abortions? Does that help?

I almost missed this. You deleted the code that references my post, so I got no alert, and Tapatalk doesn't always drop me at my last read post.

Let me address this first by asking: Are you familiar with the term "springboard" in discussions? There are many instances in this forum where this technic is used. For instance:

Planned Parenthood admits selling baby body parts, reported in news story out Sept. 4, 2019.

In the above thread, the OP has more to do with journalistic malpractice than abortion (per se). I didn't wade through every page of that thread to see if you protested against it being in the abortion forum. Did you?

I don't respond to all abortion threads, so I might not have seen it to have called it out. Nor am I going to make a special trip over there just to do so. Doesn't mean my point is any less applicable. Isn't there a fallacy about claiming that an argument is invalid just because it wasn't universally applied by the one giving it? One of these days I'm going to take that class so I can keep these things straight. That said, I wasn't even the one that originally called you out on the issue of misdirection in putting this thread in the abortion forum. I did a rewording of the one who did, and we been at this since.

Surely you can see that an argument is not being made here (in your revised version), nor in mine. An argument consists of at least one premise and a conclusion. Even if you answer yes to the question you can't draw the conclusion that therefore abortions are wrong. At best all you can conclude is that surgeons might have an ulterior motive for performing abortions other than a concern for the welfare of their patients. But please note I didn't allude to each and every surgeon having one.

First I want to point out that you have done a word chance here. You used abortionist in your first argument on ulterior motives. I then used cancer surgeons as an example to show how that argument failed to hold up. Now you are using the word surgeon for those doing abortions. While a technically valid application of the word, the shift in use implies that our examples were the same, and I made no argument at all. If this was intentional, it is a poor move. But I can see it possibly being unintentional.

That said, yes by leaving your argument at abortionists might have ulterior motives, that leaves the impression that you are referencing at least the majority of abortionists. Had you use the word "some" or "a few", you then don't broad brush the profession. But this doesn't work with the apparent goal of demonizing abortion, as indicated by the placement of this thread, and that specific ommission.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
But this doesn't work with the apparent goal of demonizing abortion, as indicated by the placement of this thread, and that specific ommission.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
I believe I stated as such.

I won't quibble with you over who first attempted to derail this thread by pointing out its mis-placement in the forum "Abortion". If it's in the wrong location I'll leave it up to the mods to move it to its appropriate spot.
 
I almost missed this. You deleted the code that references my post, so I got no alert, and Tapatalk doesn't always drop me at my last read post.



I don't respond to all abortion threads, so I might not have seen it to have called it out. Nor am I going to make a special trip over there just to do so. Doesn't mean my point is any less applicable. Isn't there a fallacy about claiming that an argument is invalid just because it wasn't universally applied by the one giving it? One of these days I'm going to take that class so I can keep these things straight. That said, I wasn't even the one that originally called you out on the issue of misdirection in putting this thread in the abortion forum. I did a rewording of the one who did, and we been at this since.



First I want to point out that you have done a word chance here. You used abortionist in your first argument on ulterior motives. I then used cancer surgeons as an example to show how that argument failed to hold up. Now you are using the word surgeon for those doing abortions. While a technically valid application of the word, the shift in use implies that our examples were the same, and I made no argument at all. If this was intentional, it is a poor move. But I can see it possibly being unintentional.

That said, yes by leaving your argument at abortionists might have ulterior motives, that leaves the impression that you are referencing at least the majority of abortionists. Had you use the word "some" or "a few", you then don't broad brush the profession. But this doesn't work with the apparent goal of demonizing abortion, as indicated by the placement of this thread, and that specific ommission.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Well said.
 
Well I think you have to be a little twisted mentally to perform abortions to begin with
There are people who think you have to be a little twisted mentally to claim the Earth is round and not flat. Expressing an opinion does nothing towards furthering your argument.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Well I think you have to be a little twisted mentally to perform abortions to begin with
How so? I'm not a surgeon (or have any skill in the medical field) but I would think you'd have to have a great deal of mental acuity to perform abortions. If you're speaking of moral deficiency one has to remember that (for the most part) morality is a subjective matter -- meaning your morals are not necessarily superior to that of others.
 
Back
Top Bottom