A snippet of an email conversation I'm engaged in.

[Trout]

Those who know Gerbil will certainly enjoy the precision of his thinking in the following blurb:

RE: Abortion
The issue is only tough for people who refuse indulge in clear thinking.
You did a nice job of laying out some of the common arguments made by the brain dead pro-choicers.
I think you'll find it amazing just how weak these golden arguments are upon examination.

ARGUMENT 1: Also, I think it is understandable that a woman should be able to decide what she is going to do with her body.

REBUTTLE 1a: The US Government currently doesn't allow any woman to take illegal drugs. You see, nobody anywhere in our country is allowed to have free reign over his or her own body - this is true for men and women.

REBUTTLE 1b: Pro-choice people will insist that a man who fathers a child in a one night stand work his body for 21 years to pay child support because the mere act of conception obligates him to provide for the child and yet these same people don't apply that to the woman for a mere 9 months. That sort of double standard is known as "sexism".

CONCLUSION: The first argument fails in practice and is inherently sexist.



ARGUMENT 2: Each individual should decide this for themselves along with their own beliefs.

REBUTTLE 2a: The whole point of law is individuals coming together and deciding how they will act as a group. There is no sense in which the law is used as "each person deciding for themselves". What this statement fails to grasp is a 4th grade understanding of the word "law".

REBUTTLE 2b: We don't allow each individual to decide for themselves on thousands of issues. People don't get to murder just because it is a personal belief that someone else should die.

CONCLUSION: The second argument has no place in the discussion of what should or should not be US Law. There is no pro-choicer that feels that way about all things, because of this, the statement really is pre-supposing what it hopes to prove. Begging the question is reasoning at it's worst.



ARGUMENT 3: Government should stay out of the bedroom.

REBUTTLE 3a: If I molest a child in my bedroom and the door is shut do I get a pass? This ignorant statement is bandied about like it means something but the fact is that the government is already in the bedroom and people want the government there. (smoke detectors, contents of pillows, crime scenes)

REBUTTLE 3b: Given that soft porn is used to sell cars and the TV camera already spends lots of time in the bedroom (watch FOX) once has to wonder why this appeal to Puritanism is being made by people who flaunt sex all over the place. What makes the 'bedroom' hallowed ground to these people all of a sudden? My guess is rank hypocrisy.

CONCLUSION: This argument is pretentious and hypocritical.




ARGUMENT 4: Is rape, incest, or the life of the mother ever a rationale for abortion?

REBUTTLE 4a: This argument is an attempt to muddy the waters. It is like claiming the speed limit for all people should be 100 mph just because we want ambulances to be able to go that speed when necessary.

REBUTTLE 4b: I'm currently unaware of any other crime (besides rape) where an innocent bystander is intentionally killed because someone else committed a crime.

REBUTTLE 4c: Would you please explain to me why you are against the death penalty for a guilty rapist but for allowing the murder of an innocent?

CONCLUSION: This argument attempt to muddy the waters and again pre-supposes what it attempts to prove.



ARGUMENT 5: I'm against abortion but again, it is a deeply personal issue.

REBUTTLE 5a: Since when does the law excuse itself because something is personal? It is a very personal thing when someone is raped and yet the law gets involved. It is a personal thing when a family member dies and yet the law dictates how, when, and where a person can be buried. It is a personal thing when the government sends a search party and pack of search dogs up your arse at the airport because you set off a detector. US Law doesn't recognize "personal issues" as a legal argument.

CONCLUSION: Argument 5 is a ruse that is entirely unrecognized by any other legal precedent.



That all said, the very need for abortion is the result of so many other horrible moral failures that there isn't anything that can be done about it at this point. Most pro-abortionists are so weak intellectually/morally/spiritually that you'd have to educate them for years in order to get them to the point where you could even begin to intelligently talk about abortion law. Your friends who fed you the arguments above would need an education before they could begin to talk about it. Why don't you work on teaching them some of the basics of rational thought?

[mossrose]

He is, as always, brilliant.

[Chaotic Void]

Gerbzy is doing a good job.

Has the Pro-Choicer broke out the "Argument from Financial Burden" yet?

[Trout]

Gerbzy is doing a good job.

Has the Pro-Choicer broke out the "Argument from Financial Burden" yet?

Not yet.

[Chaotic Void]

Not yet.

Really?

Ah well.

I'm rootin' for you.

[Raphael]

[Sparko]

nice work.

[Trout]

nice work.

Thanks Trout*,

I'll pass along the accolade to the Gerbil.

[mossrose]

Tell him to email me once in a while, huh?

He at least answers his email.

[Dee Dee Warren]

that was awesome - I am going to post that on the PretBlog

[zemmiphobiac]

Excellent post. I'm going to keep it bookmarked for the times when people break out these arguments.