Pro-life society...

I've been meaning to reply to this post but couldn't think of a witty enough comeback. How about this:
What is the ratio of male to female foetuses that are aborted?

Pro-life is a stupid name. Just because you're for abortion doesn't mean you're anti-life.

I didn't notice a logical fallacy there...
Anyway, I know what sapience is and your argument that a baby is more sapient than a foetus just doesn't make sense to me. You are saying that it is more sapient because it can develop the ability to be sapient.
I'm sorry what?
So can a foetus - that is the point. Your argument just doesn't make sense to me...

Why is that at all relevant?
I'd imagine the ratio is different all over the world, sex-selective aborting certainly does exist if that's what you're trying to argue, but in some cultures the ratio will be tipped in the male favour, some in the female favour. Sometimes it's only by pure chance that the ratio tips either way.

What's the point that you're trying to make?

You misinterpreted my point. I did not anything really equatable to what you said, but I shall rephrase to try and better get my point across

A baby is partially sapient. It can not only feel (sentience) but can also make decisions according to logic. (Due to the fact that firing neurons are different logic gates or memory cells in every configuration possible). An early foetus cannot do this and therefore is not sapient. Late term foetuses have a much stronger possibility to be sapient on some level and so I say aborting them is wrong, however up until VERY late in pregnancy, neurons have not developed and started functioning in any way that would make them describable as sapient.

I would happily change my views provided a person could show me empirical evidence that a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or early term foetus had higher cognitive functions and demonstrated logic-based reactions.

There was no mention of the morning after pill in our debate.

You cannot reasonably argue a point without having a comprehensive knowlege of the relevant facts.

Guilt implies a knowledge of a wrong done. I have done no wrong therefore there is no guilt here.

Reductio ad absurdum in general application is a logical fallacy. This is due to the fact that you push the point to the limit where it is no longer considered a point as it is in the absurd (as in beyond belief or logical reason).

The moral differences were not a point we were arguing and so in your style I will refuse to acknowledge it as a point.

The ability to feel pain is a PART of personhood, not the only part. However please explain how this point alone has any relevance to my belief that Abortion should be legal before sapience has begun its development and not after?

Honestly if you don't know about a subject, don't debate about it. You end up out of your depth and it kinda devalues any original point you might have had.

Also your argument "So the killing of an infant isn't murder. They aren't 'fully formed'." is a very good example of the logical fallacy referred to as "reductio ad absurdum". What you have done is to take what has been said and reduced it to something too basic, something that wasn't intended. You cherry-picked the words "fully-formed" and used a different interpretation of them as a way of proving a point when in fact all you did was weaken any point you may have been attempting to get across)

Rape does not justify killing the baby because it is INNOCENT.

I was replying to a post implying that those who oppose abortion were insensetive to women's rights, an I was making the point that both male and female foetuses are aborted (the actual ratio is irrelevant), so it is silly to say that abortion is good for women.

So I clicked on on the society, and I believe it is 100% male?

only because I CBA joining

So I clicked on on the society, and I believe it is 100% male? The point she's trying to make is that it's all fair and good men opposing it because they don't have to carry the child and taking care of the child will probably fall on the woman anyway.

And to mention the stupid graphic you use to represent the society.
Ever notice how everyone who opposes abortion has already been born?

Your reasoning seems to be missing a step. I'm not quite following your argument.

P1: Male and female foetuses are both aborted
C: Abortion isn't good for women.

Can you see how this is an illogical jump?

I don't feel it is moral to try to take away the choice a woman has in having children. Every person under the Human Rights Act has a clear cut right to a family, surely this should extend to a right to NOT have a family?

I believe if a woman isn't ready for a child, or just plain doesn't want a child, she should be able to abort the pregnancy. It's the woman's choice and I firmly believe all the power of choice should land with the woman. There's the big ethical and legal grey area about the power the man should have in abortion, but I believe the man should have no say in whether his wife has an abortion or not. Of course I believe the couple should talk about it to come to the best decision, and a good man would recognise how it is his wife's choice and support her in her decision. But let's assume a situation where the woman is 100% "wants abortion" and the male is 100% "doesn't want abortion." I believe the woman should be able to have the abortion without fear of consequences, unfortunately, in such a situation there probably will be.

I know that last paragraph isn't exactly relevant, but I'm just throwing in another paragraph to let you know where I stand in the "Pro-Choice" thing.

So I clicked on on the society, and I believe it is 100% male? The point she's trying to make is that it's all fair and good men opposing it because they don't have to carry the child and taking care of the child will probably fall on the woman anyway.

And to mention the stupid graphic you use to represent the society.
Ever notice how everyone who opposes abortion has already been born?

Your reasoning seems to be missing a step. I'm not quite following your argument.

P1: Male and female foetuses are both aborted
C: Abortion isn't good for women.

Can you see how this is an illogical jump?

I don't feel it is moral to try to take away the choice a woman has in having children. Every person under the Human Rights Act has a clear cut right to a family, surely this should extend to a right to NOT have a family?

I believe if a woman isn't ready for a child, or just plain doesn't want a child, she should be able to abort the pregnancy. It's the woman's choice and I firmly believe all the power of choice should land with the woman. There's the big ethical and legal grey area about the power the man should have in abortion, but I believe the man should have no say in whether his wife has an abortion or not. Of course I believe the couple should talk about it to come to the best decision, and a good man would recognise how it is his wife's choice and support her in her decision. But let's assume a situation where the woman is 100% "wants abortion" and the male is 100% "doesn't want abortion." I believe the woman should be able to have the abortion without fear of consequences, unfortunately, in such a situation there probably will be.

I know that last paragraph isn't exactly relevant, but I'm just throwing in another paragraph to let you know where I stand in the "Pro-Choice" thing.

But the point I was responding to asked me about the MAP

Again I know about philosophy.

This is pedantry beyond belief and is not even true. Guilt = The fact of being responsible for the commission of an offense. Which requires no knowledges.

No it merely is used to show an argument has absurd logical conclusions. It is one of the major ways to disprove arguments. Hardly a logical fallcy! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

We were hardly arguing anything. Kabloomybuzz and I were arguing about personhood which involves morality at least in the consequence (i.e. people have moral worth).

There is literally no argument in there at all. Only misunderstanding of terms and attacking me for not knowing exactly what interpretation of 'fully formed' they were going for.

As for your belief that abortion should be legal before sapience I would inquire as to whether mentally retarded people count as persons? Does Stephen Hawking have higher moral worth than you?

I know, I get that part of your viewpoint, but before you said something like "babies have the potential to become fully developed, therefore it is wrong to kill them but okay to kill foetuses" and I still don't see how that makes sense.

When debating an issue that is about an entirely biological process (pregnancy and nervous development in foetuses), you have to understand the biology behind it. If you don't you cannot possibly make an informed deciion as to the ethics related to it.

If we were for example debating about the ethics of a certain piece of legislation that bans violence in self defence (just a random example off the top of my head). I would HAVE to know the wording, background and relevant cases in UK law before I could make an informed decision as to my moral position on it.

In general usage it is a fallacy as for the most part it takes things to unreasonable extremes and then attempts to use that to back up a statement that if it does not work in extremes it cannot work in moderation.

Another example of this would be if you said "explosions can be good because they are the basis of internal combustion engines" and then I say "many people are killed by massive explosions and therefore explosions are always bad"

Here explosions in moderation are positive, but in the extreme are negative.

I attacked your argument, pointing out that there were two main interpretations of "fully formed" that you could have used, and rather than use the one most likely for the opponent to use; fully formed = fully formed as a functioning organism, you used the interpretation; fully formed = an adult human being.

They are still sapient. If they are not they are legally classified as dead.

I know the facts well enough but thank you for your concern.

No in your example the 1st statement isn't contradicted by the second and it just isn't a reducto ad absurdum.

From Wikipedia:

Proposition: "Lowering taxation rates always results in increased tax revenue."

"If taxes were lowered to 0%, no taxes at all would be collected. Zero will always be less revenue than even the lowest non-zero tax rate would produce, thus the proposition is false."

This is a reducto ad absurdum argument, it takes the proposition's conclusions and applies and shows it false.

The idea of an adult human being counting as 'fully formed' seemed more natural use of the language, however I assumed that's what they were getting at and so inquired about infants in the hope of a fuller explanation.

If we are using it as interchangeable with wisdom then they are not. How would you define sapience?

Still pretty sure it is a form reductio ad absurdum argument as you reduced it to an absurd level and then used that in an attempt to disprove the argument. I'll concede it's not a fallacy in itself, but the way you used it I'd still consider it to be a flawed argument.

If it was just an honest misinterpretation, then that's fair, though again I cannot accept the argument as valid as it did rely on that interpretation of "fully formed".

Sapience is often defined as intelligence, however I prefer the definition as being able to absorb knowledge and make conscious decisions from it in a logical framework. To me sapience is not an absolute thing, but it can not exist in an organism.

Not at all.
Are you serious, you can't see where I'm coming from?
Your entire post doesn't take into account the fact that some people believe foetuses to have the same rights as fully-formed people, which would make it wrong to kill them regardless of whether it would bring comfort to the mother. That is all it is - comfort (because once it is born it can be sent to a care home, so stopping the women from having an abortion is not exactly forcing her to raise a child. All abortion achieves is bringing comfort to the mother).
Also, I don't personally appreciate any arguments about 'right to a family' etc. because IMO, the family unit is a stupid idea and children should be raised communally.
You just generally seem a little out of touch with viewpoints that oppose yours.
EDIT:
That is two quotes there. Oh well...

I am a card-carrying pro lifer, so am in.

I take it you also oppose the death penalty, war and euthanasia then.