NPC Meme

What even is this incoherency?
I don't think people should own slaves so I should... support everyone getting a free high rise apartments and switching the powergrid to windmills?
A does not obligate B, H and somehow Z

"Pro-lifers" say it's okay to force women to carry a pregnancy against their will, because it saves lives, and it's worth losing bodily autonomy. So, logically, wouldn't they also support losing gun rights to save lives? What about owning cars, as they're the leading cause of death in the western world?

I'm well aware of just how ridiculous that sounds. But banning abortion is even MORE ridiculous.

Banning killing people and protecting the basic right to life isn't that ridiculous.
Your "logically" examples is strawmaning the issue because you overlooked this.

Abortion doesn't kill people, it's only an abortion. However, loose gun laws, private healthcare, and excessive cars DO kill people.

You're proving my point. You're okay with killing people in exchange for other certain benefits.

Wrong abortion end a life, trying to define it otherwise requires you to ignore science. This violate right to life.,
The right to bear arms is part of our right to self defense.
Own cars is part of our freedom of movement an private property rights.
Private medicine is part of out freedom of commerce.
Only one of these thing require to kill a person.

You're still strawmaning, and contradicted your own view admitting abortions kill right at the end.
In each I side with our basic freedoms, you lie about me so you can pretend to be morally superior.

Dude, science says that human embryos don't have brains capable of processing pain for a very very long time. The right to life is NOT at conception.

The right to bear arms is part of your right to self defense? Considering how dangerous pregnancy is, abortion is also self defense.

How are so immune to satire, that you're incapable of understanding my point about cars? My ENTIRE POINT IS THAT IT'S RIDICULOUS TO DO THAT. I am fully aware of how stupid and anti-freedom it is to ban them. But banning them DOES save lives. So, you agree that removing people's rights to save lives isn't 100% foolproof. Like, Jesus, how dense are you?

!), Still a life. A human life that you're ending. Whether it should count as a person is a different argument altogether, and even then wouldn't doesn't apply broadly to all abortions.

2). Does falls under self defense until you have a valid concern for your life, which usually doesn't happen. A medical separation is when is the term for aborting to save the mother life and therefore different issue altogether.

3). Your attempt at a Reductio ad Absurdum fails because you strawmaned the issue, which I pointed out. It isn't my flaw, as I know and use that tactic, it's your because you did it wrong.

1) By that definition, human cancer is a human life. You obviously meant right to life in the context of "human life = has rights" but then you say an embryo counts as human life in the definition of "human life = a cell with human DNA".

2) So if somebody threatens to hurt you without killing you, you're not allowed to use self defense? And no, when an abortion is given because the fetus is threatening the mother's life, that's still called an abortion. It's still an abortion. Even a miscarriage is called a spontaneous abortion.

3) It's not a strawman. I didn't claim you supported any specific position until you did. My point is that you're against taking away people's rights to save lives, but you're okay with taking people's rights to stop abortion. Pointing out that you're a hypocrite isn't a Strawman Fallacy. Idiot.

1. No, cancer is not a life, which has a different definition that just life. You're grasping at straws and trying to use two definitions in on argument while acting like they are the same.

"life
/līf/
noun
1.
the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
"the origins of life"

2.
the existence of an individual human being or animal."

I used 2 you switched to 1.

2. You just moving the goalpost to might theoretically possibly cause harm to a reasonable chance.

""Medical separation" in the context of fetal surgery can have a few interpretations, but within the provided search results, the most direct interpretation is related to procedures where the fetus is separated from the mother for treatment, as well as potential complications involving the separation of membranes. "

3. Nope a strawman because you failed to get that the issue come from a protection of rights and then manufactured a contradiction that didn't actually exist, no hypocrisy on my part, but a strawman on yours. No right are taken away, but are protected.

As it is a Reductio ad Absurdum of your meme would be replacing the starting panel with an statement against murder and then using the rest to justify murder. Your basic reasoning chain would holds, thus showing the flaw in your argument.

It's impossible for me to debate with someone who tells flatout lies.

For the first point, you used the first definition, said "whether it should count as a person is a different argument", then claimed you used that definition from the start.

2 No? Pregnancy is very well known to, by definition, be EXTREMELY taxing on the human body. Occasionally injury, rarely even death, but still; A very reasonable violation of your rights. And you support it. Because you don't care about people's rights, you just use it as an excuse to support your own agenda.

3) I'm literally the one arguing in favor of rights, you're arguing in favor of taking away people's rights in order to save a fetus. Literally forced pregnancy. Because you're a vile piece of shit.

You ignore everything I say because you're a f**king monster who LOVES RAPE. YES, FORCED PREGNANCY IS RAPE.

My meme wasn't even the full argument, because it accepted your bullshit "fetuses = human life" argument. Anti-abortion arguments are SO bad, that even if we accept that bullshit, your argument in banning it STILL falls short because, as those other examples I gave, you never support doing ANYTHING else to save lives.

You're perfectly okay with killing people. That's my point. You support letting people die, killing people directly, and therefore you are wrong to argue that abortion is wrong because it takes a human life.

You're perfectly okay with human lives being lost.

F**k off, pro-child rape hypocrite.

1). Nope, used a life. A life and then a person is different things. You're lying again.

2). You're assigning beliefs to me not supported by my argument, and ignoring my argument, thus lying again.

3). No, you're arguing against the right to life and lying about it.

You also lie that I support rape and dig that hole deeper by twisting farther and farther.

You argument support killings people after birth, especially infants, just as easy as abortion, you lie about my belief to cover for this and resort to personal attacks based off your lies.

No, I'm against slavery.

Does that include being against forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term?

That isn't slavery. But thanks for the red herring.
"Slavery is the ownership of a person as property, where they are compelled to work without freedom or rights. It involves the forced labor and restricted liberty of individuals, who are treated as possessions and are subject to the will of their enslavers. Historically, slavery has been a global phenomenon with various forms and durations. Modern slavery persists today, with millions enduring forced labor, forced marriage, and other forms of exploitation. "

Forced labor? Funny, "labor" is exactly one of the terms we use about pregnancy....

I suppose you think forced organ donations don't count, either? Since losing an organ isn't technically a job.

"The equivocation fallacy occurs when a word or phrase with multiple meanings is used in a way that shifts between those meanings within the same argument, leading to a misleading or invalid conclusion. Essentially, it's an ambiguity in language that's exploited to create a false sense of logic. "

Stealing organs is theft, grievous harm, and likely murder.

Childbirth is labor. BOTH types of labor. Pregnancies and childbirth are work, labor, whatever word you want to use. In fact it is literally the single hardest thing the body can ever go through. Forcing someone to go through forced labor without their consent is, by your own definition, slavery.

Forcing someone to use their uterus for you is theft. Pregnancies often result in grevious harm and occasionally death, so it could potentially also be grevious harm and murder.

Why do you support slavery?

Bro misunderstood a fallacy and thought quoting it makes him look smart LOLOLOLOL

Nope, you're using two different definitions of labor and pretending they are the same.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/labor
"labor
1 of 3
noun
la·​bor ˈlā-bər
plurallabors
Synonyms of labor
1
a
: expenditure of physical or mental effort especially when difficult or compulsory
was sentenced to six months at hard labor
b
(1)
: the services performed by workers for wages as distinguished from those rendered by entrepreneurs for profits
(2)
: human activity that provides the goods or services in an economy
Industry needs labor for production.
c
: the physical activities (such as dilation of the cervix and contraction of the uterus) involved in giving birth
also : the period of such labor
2
a
: workers considered as a group
The institute … lacks the ready supply of cheap labor—graduate students—that teaching institutions have.
—Ann Gibbons"

Giving birth is "an expenditure of physical or mental effort especially when difficult or compulsory." I did use those two different definitions, because they BOTH apply to childbirth.

You're okay with forced labor (childbirth). Forced childbirth is forced labor (Physical effort).

Why do you support slavery?

" t(1)
: the services performed by workers for wages as distinguished from those rendered by entrepreneurs for profits
(2)
: human activity that provides the goods or services in an economy"
You're still doing it. At this point is is basically lying to try to keep this up.

Those aren't even the same definitions you wrote earlier.

You're okay with forcing people to go through agonizing pain against their will. Forced pregnancy is not only rape, but it's comparable to torture.

Why do you support child rape?

Lying when you can scroll up and check doesn't help. I copy and pasted from my earlier post. And your position is is alright to murder someone to prevent pain on your part and lying and saying I'm in favor of forcing pain. You normally have a choice before this not to get pregnant. I'm also OK with aborting a zygote or if the mother's life is in danger.

Nope, you're using two different definition of labor an pretending they are the same.
But nice of you to say it's OK to kill someone because of the consequences of your own choices.
It's not slavery, no matter how you you crank you spin machine, it somethin they chose when they chose create another person dependent on them.

"

Can you be more specific? The first two, I know you're implying something but I don't know what. The third one of course is obvious, and yes, trans women are women.