Originally Posted by Lurch907

Simple, while both terms, spanking and assault, fit the act, one is far more specific than the other. You analogy doesn't apply. Calling levonorgestrel a contraceptive is incorrect, while calling it an abortion pill is correct. Contraceptive and abortion are not the same and therefore should not be used to describe the same thing.

You conveniently forget to acknowledge the truth in my analogy. Spanking is assault. The specifics are irrelevant. So why don't we call spanking assault?

Please explain how its an exageration. Taking levonorgestrel after conception causes an abortion. How would you like it phrased (without being dishonest)?

"Abortion" as in the killing of a fetus has a radically different connotation than the simple prevention of implantation. What does it say on the bottle? I doubt it says "abortion pill".

Much the same as abortion supporters are prone to calling the human embryo a "clump of cells" or "parasite". I don't condone exaggerations, on either side, but I fail to see how that applies to calling levonorgestrel an abortion pill.

Both of those are completely accurate descriptions, just as the abortion pill is a technically accurate description of the Plan B pill. Don't you find it hypocritical that you defend the morning after pill being called the "abortion pill" but are hostile to the embryo/parasite analogy?

I did not use a false analogy nor did I introduce a slippery slope. I simply pointed out that the term "pro-choice" is extremely vague. Heck, it could be used to describe a store owner that refuses to carry more than one brand of milk. For that matter I think "pro-life", while better, is also too vague.

Slippery slope fallacy: "If we let X happen then what is to prevent Y from happening?"
If we allow people to choose abortion what is to prevent us from allowing people to choose to murder?

False analogy fallacy: "A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P."

Freedom to choose abortion and freedom to choose murder are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since freedom to choose murder can be morally wrong, freedom to choose to have an abortion must also be morally wrong.

Sorry it didn't work out for you.

Originally Posted by Shooterandproud

You conveniently forget to acknowledge the truth in my analogy. Spanking is assault. The specifics are irrelevant. So why don't we call spanking assault?

Your analogy doesn't fit the discussion. Yes, the terms "spanking" and "assault" share some definitions, but, the terms "contraceptive" and "abortion" do not. While a spanking can be an assault and vice versa the same cannot be said for abortion and contraceptive.

"Abortion" as in the killing of a fetus has a radically different connotation than the simple prevention of implantation. What does it say on the bottle? I doubt it says "abortion pill".

I have no idea what it says on the bottle and you didn't answer the question. How is calling levonorgestrel an abortion pill an exageration? Afterall that is exactly what it does. The simple fact is anything that terminates the pregnancy after conception is an abortion, calling it something else is either ignorance or an attempt to deceive.

Both of those are completely accurate descriptions, just as the abortion pill is a technically accurate description of the Plan B pill. Don't you find it hypocritical that you defend the morning after pill being called the "abortion pill" but are hostile to the embryo/parasite analogy?

Excuse me, when was I hostile to anything? I said I don't condone exagerations, calling an embryo a baby or a clump of cells. Parasite is a different matter since its incorrect as well as an exageration. Again, what would you like to call levonorgestrel? If someone asks me: What does levonorgestrel do? Should I not say "It causes an abortion".

Slippery slope fallacy: "If we let X happen then what is to prevent Y from happening?"
If we allow people to choose abortion what is to prevent us from allowing people to choose to murder?

Moot since my analogy implied no such thing.

False analogy fallacy: "A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P."

I was clearly using the analogy to show the vagueness of the terms "pro-choice" and "anti-choice". Since my analogy shows that pro/anti-choice can be applied to any number of things, including my example, it is not a fallacy.

Freedom to choose abortion and freedom to choose murder are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since freedom to choose murder can be morally wrong, freedom to choose to have an abortion must also be morally wrong.

My analogy only showed them to be similar in that the terms "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" can be used for both, thus demonstrating how vague they are.

Sorry it didn't work out for you.

No need to be sorry, worked out just fine.

Originally Posted by Lurch907

Your analogy doesn't fit the discussion. Yes, the terms "spanking" and "assault" share some definitions, but, the terms "contraceptive" and "abortion" do not. While a spanking can be an assault and vice versa the same cannot be said for abortion and contraceptive.

But you're completely missing the point. Although spanking meets the definition of assault, calling it "assault" would be a gross exaggeration, don't you agree?

I have no idea what it says on the bottle and you didn't answer the question. How is calling levonorgestrel an abortion pill an exageration? Afterall that is exactly what it does. The simple fact is anything that terminates the pregnancy after conception is an abortion, calling it something else is either ignorance or an attempt to deceive.

The same way calling spanking "assault" is an exaggeration.

Excuse me, when was I hostile to anything? I said I don't condone exagerations, calling an embryo a baby or a clump of cells. Parasite is a different matter since its incorrect as well as an exageration.

Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently.

Sounds pretty accurate to me.

Again, what would you like to call levonorgestrel? If someone asks me: What does levonorgestrel do? Should I not say "It causes an abortion".

Plan B/Morning after pill.

Moot since my analogy implied no such thing.

Oh, but it did.

I was clearly using the analogy to show the vagueness of the terms "pro-choice" and "anti-choice". Since my analogy shows that pro/anti-choice can be applied to any number of things, including my example, it is not a fallacy.

We're obviously talking about abortion when we say "choice". This is the abortion forum after all.

My analogy only showed them to be similar in that the terms "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" can be used for both, thus demonstrating how vague they are.

"Pro-life" is just as vague. Why aren't you complaining about that?

Originally Posted by Shooterandproud

But you're completely missing the point. Although spanking meets the definition of assault, calling it "assault" would be a gross exaggeration, don't you agree?

Yes, I agree. It just makes a lousy comparison to the topic. Calling levonorgestrel a contraceptive is incorrect, its not a less exagerated replacement for abortion.

Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently.

Sounds pretty accurate to me.

Your right, I stand corrected. It is a good example of an exaggeration.

Plan B/Morning after pill.

Unfortunatly, those terms don't tell you what levonorgestrel is, were back to vague again. For instance, Keflex can be rightfully called an antibiotic. Calling it an antibiotic tells you what Keflex is/does. Calling levonorgestrel "plan B" isn't very helpful.

"Pro-life" is just as vague. Why aren't you complaining about that?

Look back a few posts, I already said I also think "pro-life" is too vague. "Anti-abortion" makes much more sense.

Originally Posted by Lurch907

Yes, I agree. It just makes a lousy comparison to the topic. Calling levonorgestrel a contraceptive is incorrect, its not a less exagerated replacement for abortion.

That was my mistake, I should've called it something like Plan B, which is a less exaggerated replacement for abortion.

Unfortunatly, those terms don't tell you what levonorgestrel is, were back to vague again. For instance, Keflex can be rightfully called an antibiotic. Calling it an antibiotic tells you what Keflex is/does. Calling levonorgestrel "plan B" isn't very helpful.

Calling orange juice "Sunny D" isn't very helpful either. It's just a name, not every product must be called by its scientific definition.

Look back a few posts, I already said I also think "pro-life" is too vague. "Anti-abortion" makes much more sense.

Then I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by Shooterandproud

Calling orange juice "Sunny D" isn't very helpful either. It's just a name, not every product must be called by its scientific definition.

Your helping my point here. "Sunny D" is the product name, but, calling it orange juice isn't an exageration because thats what it is (taking your word, I've never had Sunny D). Calling "Kleenex" facial tissue isn't an exaggeration because thats what it is. Calling "Levonorgestrel" an abortion pill isn't an exaggeration because thats what it is.

Originally Posted by Lurch907

Your helping my point here. "Sunny D" is the product name, but, calling it orange juice isn't an exageration because thats what it is (taking your word, I've never had Sunny D). Calling "Kleenex" facial tissue isn't an exaggeration because thats what it is. Calling "Levonorgestrel" an abortion pill isn't an exaggeration because thats what it is.

But "Sunny D" is not exaggerating orange juice. "Sunny D" does not describe something else more accurately, as abortion describes the procedure performed by an abortion doctor, not a pill.

Originally Posted by Shooterandproud

But "Sunny D" is not exaggerating orange juice. "Sunny D" does not describe something else more accurately, as abortion describes the procedure performed by an abortion doctor, not a pill.

"Sunny D" is a trade name, so is "Kleenex" and "Levonorgestrel". Calling "Sunny D" orange juice is an accurate way to describe the product ie. "Sunny D is orange juice". Calling "Kleenex" facial tissue is an accurate way to describe the product ie. "Kleenex is a facial tissue". Calling "Levonorgestrel" an abortion pill is an accurate way to describe the product ie. "Levonorgestrel is an abortion pill".

The description is accurate, succinct, and precisely describes the product. It is not an exaggeration and any attempt to claim otherwise at this point is willful ignorance.

Originally Posted by Lurch907

"Sunny D" is a trade name, so is "Kleenex" and "Levonorgestrel". Calling "Sunny D" orange juice is an accurate way to describe the product ie. "Sunny D is orange juice". Calling "Kleenex" facial tissue is an accurate way to describe the product ie. "Kleenex is a facial tissue". Calling "Levonorgestrel" an abortion pill is an accurate way to describe the product ie. "Levonorgestrel is an abortion pill".

When I say abortion, what do you think of? Do you think of taking a pill? When someone says "I had an abortion", nearly everyone assumes you went to a doctor and got the fetus removed, not taking a pill. When someone says "I drank some some Sunny D" or "I used a Kleenex", we know exactly what they are talking about, the words don't have any alternate connotation like "abortion" does. I'm not disputing that "abortion pill" is an accurate description, it is. It's just an exaggeration, and exaggerations are always accurate to some degree. When we start calling Levonorgestrel the "abortion pill", it gives the anti-abortion crowd leverage to ban it, when in fact it prevents much nastier abortions from occuring and keeps women safe from back-alley abortions. So lets just call it what it is, Levonorgestrel, and forget about it. There are much more important things to debate than fussing over the name of a freakin pill.

Originally Posted by Shooterandproud

When we start calling Levonorgestrel the "abortion pill", it gives the anti-abortion crowd leverage to ban it, when in fact it prevents much nastier abortions from occuring and keeps women safe from back-alley abortions.

Perhaps if the abortion supporters arguement is damaged by their opponent using the truth, its time to re-think their position.
"Prevents much nastier abortions"?? If I was an abortion supporter I don't think I'd use this line of reasoning. The "lesser degree of wrong" argument seems flawed from the start.

Everyone choose life. Your mothers did.

Originally Posted by Lurch907

Perhaps if the abortion supporters arguement is damaged by their opponent using the truth, its time to re-think their position.

If by "using the truth" you mean "bending the truth without breaking it" to vindicate your position, then yes, that is what you do. Exaggerations like that distract us from argument, and are an attempt to sway the reader without making any valid points.

"Prevents much nastier abortions"?? If I was an abortion supporter I don't think I'd use this line of reasoning. The "lesser degree of wrong" argument seems flawed from the start.

Here is an example of more pro-life falsities. They think we love abortions, when in fact we don't. We hate them. We just have the sense to know that forcing women to carry an unwanted fetus inside of her body is far more disgusting than any abortion could be.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

Everyone choose life. Your mothers did.

Everyone choose to have unprotected sex. Your mothers did.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

Everyone choose life. Your mothers did.

Well said, Easy. Short and pointless....

Pro-choicers are all baby-killers, Obama is evil incarnate, gays and liberals are immoral and godless. That pretty much sums up all your posts. ALL of them. You must be thrilling at dinner parties.

Originally Posted by jitobear

Well said, Easy. Short and pointless....

Pro-choicers are all baby-killers, Obama is evil incarnate, gays and liberals are immoral and godless. That pretty much sums up all your posts. ALL of them. You must be thrilling at dinner parties.

Haha I can just imagine it. "And then, the evil liberal homosexual Mexican day laborers will join Michael Moore and his Prius tank division from the East to take over America from us god fearing Christians..."