Converation thread

It makes me like her more.

Dumb is letting your kids get sick from preventable diseases that may kill them or leave them sterile.

Dumb is injecting your children with harmful drugs to "prevent" them from catching viruses that no one's gotten in decades...

It’s to prevent said problems if that disease ever becomes an issue again. The REASON those diseases haven’t been around for so long is because of herd immunity vaccination.

Unfortunately the disease isn't an issue anymore, so until it becomes one, you shouldn't give a dang about whether people are vaccinated or not. I don't care WHY these diseases were eliminated, all that matters is that they WERE eliminated and thus no longer pose a threat vaccines are necessary to protect us against. You've provided no logical reason for your argument, resorting to the Fallacy of the Irrelevant Thesis. Please, please, PLEASE, learn some debate skills before you publicly embarrass your position...

Please please PLEASE stop slapping logical fallacy complaints on my face whenever you use them yourself. People still vaccinate against supposedly dead disease because they aren’t truly DEAD as much as severely weakened and rare, but we are left more open and vulnerable to them coming back if we don’t vaccinate against them. There’s also the reason of travel, we’re required to vaccinate to travel to certain places to lower the risk of bringing them back by accident, because the risk if they come back is ENORMOUS to the cost of life. It’s much more than just “it’s gone now so forget about it”.

If you'd like me to stop complaining about logical fallacies, one quick fix would be to stop using them, instantly eliminating the problem. But if you'd like to continue using them, unfortunately I'm going to have to debunk them so others are not misled – fallacies are very persuasive, though they are dangerous. If I'm using logical fallacies, please point out what fallacies I used, unless, of course, you're unfamiliar with the subject of logical fallacies, in which case it would probably be best for you to stop commenting on this website until you acquaint your…  Read moreself with them.

I did not say government mandates across the board, I said that in order to enter certain things, like most businesses with contracts, you should adhere to certain standards. To travel, or work as a government employee, you follow the rules of the area. If a business chooses yes or no, I don’t have a problem with it, though I’d incentivize a requirement to prevent possible deaths. The murder of the unborn is done with every living person today being unable to survive to the age of 35 due to expensive healthcare and an early case of cancer. If a person on the individual level doesn’t want to vaccinate, that’s their problem, but in order to do certain things, certain requirements are needed.

Businesses with contracts are still composed of individuals, traveling people, and government employees, etc, are still individual people, so my argument still holds true for all these cases. For people who are genuinely scared of getting disease, they can get these d–n vaccines and instantly be protected. But why force others to get a vaccine against their will when the people who are genuinely unwilling to run the risk of catching one of these ancient diseases have already vaccinated themselves? It does nothing for the protection of those people while destroying liberty for the latter group. Sounds pretty tyrannical to me.

And you never explained why you're "Pro-Choice" for the indiustrialized butchery of 6 million children per year yet remain anti-choice on so many medical, tax, and regulatory issues....

Because in order to prevent enough deaths to not let it continue spreading, one must achieve a percentage of people protected against the disease to protect those who vehemently refuse. When they sign the contract, they need to follow the rules of that organization. Isn’t that your whole thought process with student loans? Heck, the student loans will have a more dramatic effect than vaccines.

Abortion really isn’t anything most understand. Getting angry about abortions is honestly ridiculous. 9/10 of them happen before twelve weeks, and the reasoning for them happening afterwards…  Read more is because of new, often negative, developments in the mother’s health, the child’s health, or because they lacked the access to an abortion sooner. The fetus only really gains the ability to feel pain (with all the receptors and brain function actually working) at around 24-28 weeks, over halfway through pregnancy (third trimester). Less than 1% are done after 21 weeks, and nearly all of which are given the reasons above: lack of access, or new concerns. The fetus can’t feel pain for pretty much the entire time abortion is allowed, and almost all are done before it even reaches halfway through said abortion maximum dates.

Abortion is murder, in all cases whatsoever, and should never, ever, be allowed. The reason for this is that drawing the line of when life is to be considered life has disastrous implications for fully-born children and adults as well as for the unborn who will be so cruelly slaughtered in their mother's womb. Some people never draw the line, saying that abortion is perfectly justified up until the moment of birth, sometimes for weeks AFTER birth. But if babies can be murdered after they've been out of the mother's womb for a month, if that's morally justifiable, what'…  Read more;s to stop anyone from killing anyone who's been born longer than that? Shall we draw the line for when the baby is able to survive outside his/her mother's womb? What does that mean for those adult human beings who cannot survive without life support, lying on hospitable beds at the mercy of their nurses? Killing them in cold blood would then be morally justified! Shall we draw the line for when the baby feels pain, as you seem to have suggested? Then what's to stop people from murdering those on morphine in hospitals, or on drugs, or having had anaesthetic? Is it them morally justified to gun down a bunch of desensitised people? Absolutely not! Shall we draw the line for when the baby has a heartbeat? What about those who have had heart transplants, cybernetic hearts, or pacemakers? Are their lives less valid? Shall we draw the line for danger to the mother? What does that mean for those who are alive but potentially pose a danger to other human beings, for example, those infected with viruses, etc? Shall they then be slaughtered to avert risking the death of someone else? Shall we draw the line for if the baby is conceived through rape or incest? What does that mean for those who are already born who have been born because of rape or incest? Are they then less valid, are they then to be murdered? Are illegitimate children not legitimate human beings? They had no part in the Crime committed against their mother, and yet we expect to justly punish them through the destruction of their lives?

Babies are newborns, not zygotes with no possible capability to feel much of anything until a long way through pregnancy. The attribution and false equivalence you use for aborted fetuses and dead adults is that they are one and the same, yet their circumstance, status, and even basic ability to feel, think, and breath isn’t on nearly the same level. An adult isn’t able to be killed because they’re relying on medicine, since they’re out of the womb, capable of lacking consent, and are able to communicate. Comparing the two is ludicrously irresponsible to do. Babies can…  Read morenot be killed outside the womb, because they are newborns, they are self-sustaining and are not reliant upon the parent for basic survival as before.

That’s a mouthful of nonsense. You’re addressed absolutely none of my claims, and provided no reasoning why killing these adults is not morally equivalent to murder, you’ve just continued to reason in a vicious circle, assuming the merits of your argument in order to try to prove it’s uprightness…

I am saying a fetus is not the same thing as a human, that’s a zygote with no ability to think, breathe, or feel, not a person on meds. I’m saying your false moral equivalency is ridiculous, and that the parent’s choice trumps that of the assumed wants of something that isn’t even conscious, or even barely developed. That’s why I’m fine with abortions in the earlier stages, but putting the benchmark at conception gives no parents any choice, and by doing so, would basically damn them to being forced to carry the fetus for the whole year because they didn’t see it for 2 weeks.

And you've still (surprise!) addressed NONE OF MY CLAIMS, continuing to reason in a vicious circle by claiming it's a "false moral equivalency" without providing ANY logical reason WHY that's the case, and dodging the unanswerable questions I've presented you with! You have used the question begging fallacy, assuming the very position you're arguing for in order to argue for it. Can you offer any evidence under the sun that a "Fetus" is not the sae thing as a human? I don't honestly give a **** if parents are "forced" to carry their…  Read more CHILD for 9 months, because the right to life TRUMPS ANY OTHER RIGHT. (If you're dead, you can enjoy neither liberty nor property, making life the most immediate and important right of all). So can we stop using fallacies and incoherent arguments, take the emotionalism out of this, and arrive at a logical conclusion? Can we civilly debate without resorting to fallacious reasoning?