Should we legalise abortion?

garthv

I think that abortion should be legalised as its the choice of the mother not the choice of the whole country

bonkey

Originally posted by 40crush41
additionally, case of rape and incest is around 2% so i can't understand why this argument comes up so often.

Lets do some simple math shall we?

In the various schools I have grown up in, there have been, on average, about 50 kids in each school year, typically broken into 2 classes. In one school, it was closer to 100 broken into 3.

By your figures, an average of one kid in every school year will be a "product" of either rape or incest.

You don't see that as a significant amount of people?

In a small town of 10,000 people, 200 woud be the product of rape or incest on average by your figures.

Now consider - as an American - the scandal over the Catholic Church abuse figures released recently. They were less than 2% of the population. I hope you dismissed those as irrelevant numbers as well?

jc

Memnoch

Abortion should definately be legalised, its ridiculous that we are still living by these archaic principles. A 12 week old fetus is NOT sentient, no matter what way you look at it.

People argue that at some point in time it would become sentient, which is possibly true (unless there is a misscarraige)
but then the same could be said of sperm...

so we should stop using contraception as well, since there is a chance that it would kill a potentially unborn child... oh wait, thats what the church wanted originally isn't it?

pls lets let go of these archaic ideas, and actually make our decision based on science, rather than some self-righteous morality that is based on religion.

this is why i despise religion, and despise religious people, they are obsessed with imposing their ideas and their way of life on everyone around them, it disgusts me.

Mighty_Mouse

So, it seems that you're saying that while the man is an integral part of the "before" and "after", he should have no rights to speak of about the "during" ????

No. I all for male-rights but IMO how can a man have a true understanding of the dilemna facing a women considering abortion. There are extremes in every argument. Pro-lifers often disregard any grounds for abortion and therefore indicating some horrible cases where pregnancy occurs is a fair argument.

Personally if I had a 15 yr old daughter with her whole life ahead of her..................
I really think a woman should have a right to decide whether they want to go through pregnancy and have a child they wont love thrust upon them. I really dont have a problem with early abortions.IMO its a bunch of cells.

Also, I fail to see how making people pay for their actions in relation to bearing a child is the same as someone caught drunk driving. If its the general principle than in a society every action should have a reaction, well then its a pretty harsh view on the reality. I really don't consider abortion as "ducking responsibility" as it is a huge decision in every womans life with serious consequences (emotionally, mentally).

MrPudding

When I say that I don’t think that allowing abortion will tear apart the fabric of out society I, admittedly am making an assumption. That assumption is that given it is allowed in many other countries and it has not torn their society apart I assume the same will be the case here.

Abortion is legal in the UK. To use Moriarty’s fear, “Take, for instance, the severely mentally handicapped. If foetuses don't qualify for being a distinct human being, there could be a case to be made that the profoundly mentally handicapped are also non-human or sub-human.” As far as I know even though abortion is legal in the UK the profoundly handicapped are not seen as subhuman to be disposed of willy nilly. Is this the case anywhere in the civilised world where abortion is allowed? If not why would it be in Ireland?

Is it too much of a leap to assume that we here in Ireland would also be capable of not making the idiotic assumption that just because we allow abortion we can’t kill anyone we please?

To say that if abortion was allowed in Ireland the right of life of marginalized groups in our society would be eroded is a very poor indication of what you think of you fellow Irish.

MrP

Mighty_Mouse

no! laws have never allowed murder, why allow the death of the most innocent, and precious forms of life b/c they're a hassel?

This is a pretty harsh view. Why bring a child into the world which wont be loved by its mother. Why force a woman to HAVE A CHILD due to a one-night accident.

just so a 'mother' won't get fat.

Do you really think a woman has an abotion for this reason?

additionally, case of rape and incest is around 2% so i can't understand why this argument comes up so often

You dont think these cases should be considered?

basically the point of all this is to say, think about ur position before u march around saying that ur pro-choice for the women. abortion is a horrible thing, nothing good can come from it.

and a unwanted pregnancy?

i hold absolutly nothing against a woman who has received an abortion, she deserves all the love and support that she can be given

so you have a problem with extreme pro-lifers who stand outside abortion clinics calling young girls murderers as the walk in?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BobsYourAuntie
Yes but I have made no such claim. No proposition can be proven to a point of certainty outside of mathematics. In a debate utilising informal logic we can only adduce a proof to certain degrees. In the case of the unicorn the degree is 'beyond reasonable doubt' as our legal betters would attest.

You appear to be using the term ‘informal logic’ to denote the logic that is more convenient to your argument. What you’ve described is more akin to litigation or ‘common wisdom’ than logic.

If I say there is no fluffy pink unicorn in this room, and I offer the fact that I cannot see one as testimony, then I have proven that claim beyond reasonable doubt.

No you have not. You have simply proven that you cannot see the fluffy pink unicorn in this room. You cannot see an aircraft carrier in the room either, I would assume, yet this is hardly proof that it does not exist.

To say that my position is not proven would be perverse. The evidence of my eyes is as good as it's going to get, so logically you must accept my position unless you have contradictory evidence to offer.

No, because logic is based upon deduction and may well result in the proving of that which has not been seen or has been proven only because all other alternatives have not - or to quote Sherlock Holmes, “If all other possibilities have been ruled out whatever is left, however unlikely, must be true”.

Thus to argue that simply because the fluffy pink unicorn is not in the room because you cannot see it is not logic but likely a presumptive conclusion.

It is both logical and acceptible to hold the position that abortion will not result in some undefined "threat to society" until evidence to the contrary is posited.

By that logic US abuse of Iraqi prisoners did not exist until evidence appeared and because, prior to this, it was not seen, it did not exist. Obviously this is erroneous.

In fact, Moriarty may have provided a solid argument to that very end. I don't think I could address it though since the area is so complex.

As I’ve already mentioned, my only objection has been towards sweeping presumptive conclusions. Further discussion into the arguments on either side is a secondary consideration.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by MrPudding
Is it too much of a leap to assume that we here in Ireland would also be capable of not making the idiotic assumption that just because we allow abortion we can’t kill anyone we please?

To say that if abortion was allowed in Ireland the right of life of marginalized groups in our society would be eroded is a very poor indication of what you think of you fellow Irish.

Dehumanisations have occurred before in civilised societies, resulting in some of humanities most shameful chapters that legitimised slavery or extermination.

Of course, to say abortion were to contribute to a dehumanisation of society is open to debate, but to say that to say so is an idiotic assumption is, ironically, an idiotic assumption in itself.

Perhaps there would be no long-standing affect, but to assume so is also a very naive indication of what you think of you fellow Irish.

MrPudding

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Of course, to say abortion were to contribute to a dehumanisation of society is open to debate, but to say that to say so is an idiotic assumption is, ironically, an idiotic assumption in itself.

OK. Give me a example where allowing abortion has led to marginalized members of society being put to death for convenience. And also please explain why my belief the Irish people would not allow such a thing to happen is naïve.

MrP

Rock Climber

Originally posted by David-[RLD]-
Abortion just because you don't want the baby is ridiculous and sad.

I agree

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
This is a pretty harsh view. Why bring a child into the world which wont be loved by its mother. Why force a woman to HAVE A CHILD due to a one-night accident. Do you really think a woman has an abotion for this reason? You dont think these cases should be considered? and a unwanted pregnancy? so you have a problem with extreme pro-lifers who stand outside abortion clinics calling young girls murderers as the walk in?

I find interesting that you would justify a war in the North of this country to fight for the rights of members of the catholic church who were hard done by for so long for being catholics, yet you ignore that churches view on abortion?
How can one argue for the intentions of catholics whilst ignoring one of that churches funamental principals, it's opposition to abortion?

I mean I'm opposed to abortion, on a personal level, but not opposed to peoples right to choose to have it,unless I'm directly involved.
But I don't go around sticking up for one religions rights as opposed to any other at the same time...

Originally posted by Memnoch
A 12 week old fetus is NOT sentient, no matter what way you look at it.

Really?
Have you asked it?
You'd get a similar answer from a baby just born.

Who should have the right to decide who goes on to be a fully grown adult or not? In my view no one, it's fundamentally unfair to decide who has the right to life or not.
Abortion is making the decision for a potential human being that they have no right to live.
Nature on the other hand put that foetus there in the first place and in most cases, nature when followed will nurture that foetus right up to adulthood
I was once a 12 week old foetus as were you.
Thankfully my parents decided the pregnacy that involved me, was a gift and not a bunch of cells to be sucked out in a tube

The Corinthian

Originally posted by MrPudding
OK. Give me a example where allowing abortion has led to marginalized members of society being put to death for convenience.

As I said it’s debatable. However, one could well argue that the legitimisation of abortion has been a contributing factor towards the legitimisation of euthanasia in Holland as well as helping to shape opinion with regard to the eugenics programs that were present in Scandinavia. Certainly the introduction of abortion has consistently led to both an increase in the number terminated pregnancies in the country in question and, over time, a lowering of the criteria for legal termination.

But ultimately I am simply saying that you cannot simply dismiss the issue. A direct link may not even exist, but it could well be an indirect contributing factor instead. Either way, it deserves examination rather than an arrogant denial.

And also please explain why my belief the Irish people would not allow such a thing to happen is naïve.

Because many other people have done so in the past; Germans, Australians, Americans, Spaniards, and so on. To assume that, as Irish, we’re somehow more enlightened or that what has happened in the past could never happen again is frankly idiotic.

Redleslie2

If we legalised abortion, there might be a reduction in the numbers of single mums and PD voters would have to go find someone else to label as irresponsible spongers bent on bankrupting the state and all the rest. We can't have that.

Mighty_Mouse

I find interesting that you would justify a war in the North of this country to fight for the rights of members of the catholic church who were hard done by for so long for being catholics, yet you ignore that churches view on abortion?

I dont see the connection between the rights of catholics not to be oppressed and obeying the catholic church?Do you have to be a catholic to be a republican?

How can one argue for the intentions of catholics whilst ignoring one of that churches funamental principals, it's opposition to abortion?

Whats civil rights got to do with the catholic church?(very little in fact - whole nother debate)
In fact did I even say I was a catholic?

I presume all catholics obey the Catholic Church completely? Have you ever used a condom RockClimber? Wasn't the catholic church burying still-born babys in unmarked graves not too long ago?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Redleslie2
If we legalised abortion, there might be a reduction in the numbers of single mums

Isn’t that what they said would happen when they legalised contraception? Didn’t the number of single mothers (and STI's) increase though?


(Edited on request from the moderators).

bonkey

The Corinthian and Redleslie2....

both of you have just reported each other's posts. I suggest you both consider what you reported, what you said was wrong with it, and what you posted....you'll see striking similarities.

jc

Redleslie2

There's no personal abuse directed at any poster in my lighthearted but ultimately valid post....

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
I dont see the connection between the rights of catholics not to be oppressed and obeying the catholic church?Do you have to be a catholic to be a republican? Whats civil rights got to do with the catholic church?(very little in fact - whole nother debate)
In fact did I even say I was a catholic?

I presume all catholics obey the Catholic Church completely? Have you ever used a condom RockClimber? Wasn't the catholic church burying still-born babys in unmarked graves not too long ago?

Fascinating-Did I say I was a catholic somewhere?.
Assuming I'm not what they say about condoms is irrelevant to me.
Furthermore,I don't subscribe to the every sperm is sacred tautology as sung in the meaning of life

I assumed republicanism is synonymous with fighting for in the case of NI the rights of Catholics and one of the fundamental things they preach against is abortion.
You know, you might be better off in the union after all and arguing for complete integration

Mighty_Mouse

I assumed republicanism is synonymous with fighting for in the case of NI the rights of Catholics and one of the fundamental things they preach against is abortion.

Republicanism and abortion? I still dont quite follow. Maybe you could be more clear in stating how the rights of Irish Nationalists in Northern Ireland have anything to do with pro-choice? (except that the majority of nationalists happen to be catholic).

Also suppose I was a devoted Catholic living in NI. Do I not have a right to disagree with the catholic church. Can I not believe in women priests, gay marriage and abortion?Again, not too long ago suicide was a sin, still-born babies were buried in fields, letterfrack .................................is a catholic wrong to disagree? ie Whats your point here?Is it that your presuming I'm not a good catholic?

Do you see the point I'm making?

You know, you might be better off in the union after all and arguing for complete integration

Why?

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Why?

Because all the things you mention would be dear to unionists hearts.
Secondly, I find it curious how the UUP,the DUP and the SDLP are opposed to the liberalisation of abortion laws in NI.
Whats SF's policy in the area?
I'd find it ironic if they were pro choice again because they champion the rights of catholics as catholics which would run counter to catholic teachings.
What makes a pick and choose catholic any different to a protestant and whats all the fuss over then?
I would presume that you would argue for a secular society which allows unlimited abortion then and not a catholic Ireland that limits it in the extreme.
In which case you would be better off campaigning for the 26 counties to rejoin the union...that most secular of places.

Mighty_Mouse

Because all the things you mention would be dear to unionists hearts.

Unionists are pro-choice? Really?

Secondly, I find it curious how the UUP,the DUP ......are opposed to the liberalisation of abortion laws in NI.

So they're not?

Whats SF's policy in the area?

I'm not entirely sure but I think that Sinn Fein has moved on this issue since its origins in the north. At the moment I think their position is that they accept the need for abortion where a woman’s mental and physical well-being or life is at risk or in grave danger; or in cases of rape or sexual abuse. Theres a strong "self-determination" (primarily women) lobbying mandate within the party though who are slowly bring about reform. But you could hardly call Sinn Fein pro-choice.

I'd find it ironic if they were pro choice again because they champion the rights of catholics as catholics which would run counter to catholic teachings.

Is Sinn Fein a religious or political party?

What makes a pick and choose catholic any different to a protestant and whats all the fuss over then?

IMO an extremely ignorant comment. Do you mind me asking if your Irish Rockclimber? You seem to be obsessed with the religions aspect of the POLITICAL struggle in Northern Ireland and IMO seem to have missed the point a little.

I would presume that you would argue for a secular society which allows unlimited abortion then and not a catholic Ireland that limits it in the extreme.

I would argue for a complete seperation of church and state. Would you not?

In which case you would be better off campaigning for the 26 counties to rejoin the union...that most secular of places.

Why? Whats religion got to do with republican ideals?

MrPudding

Did I hear correctly today on the radio that abortion is finally to be allow in NI? If so it will make it even easier for the people down here to pretend that there is no abortion problem and “ah sure everything is fine the way it is.”

I find it amusing that people say no abortion here when all that is happening is the problem is being exported. A bit like our rubbish and our nuclear waste. It’s so much easier to occupy the moral high ground when you simply export the problem.

The Irish girls who leave the state for abortions would be better served if the full range of services they get elsewhere were available here. Going for an abortion is not an easy thing, it is a very traumatic experience. Given that the abortion in its self is a traumatic experience this is exacerbated by the fact that they have to travel to a foreign country.

Would it not be better if we took care of our own problems “in house.” By this I mean objective counselling and after counselling and when and if it becomes clear that the person mind is made up the abortion itself.

Although I am speculating here, it seems to me that if the full range of services were available here some women may not go through with the abortion. My thinking here is when they make the decision to go to the UK or wherever it all happens very fast. There is a brief interview type thing and then the appointment is made for the next day. I would think also that if a girl here decided to have an abortion she probably would not seek any help here, what would be the point? She wants an abortion so she will go where she can get it. If they were available here subject to more in-depth counselling and advice some may actually change their minds.

MrP

monument

Originally posted by MrPudding
I find it amusing that people say no abortion here when all that is happening is the problem is being exported. A bit like our rubbish and our nuclear waste. It’s so much easier to occupy the moral high ground when you simply export the problem.

We might as well agree with ever law in ever country. :rolleyes:

What problem are we exporting?

sceptre

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
IMO an extremely ignorant comment

It might be irrelevant (make up your own mind on that one) but I wouldn't call it "an extremely ignorant comment" or anywhere near it. A case could be argued that a pick and choose Catholic is by the very nature of his/her actions equivalent to a protestant with a small p (in other words, not easily (or even possibly) slotted into a convenient Anglican/Methodist/etc box) given that they don't necessarily accept all rulings from Rome[1].

And my reply's extremely off-topic so take it to Humanities if you want to disagree/whinge/throw tomatoes.

(edit)[1]Obviously "protestant" is something of a misnomer but given that it's the most-widely used word to refer to pretty much all schisms within the RC church since the 16th century we can probably let that one say what it is likely to mean

MrPudding

Originally posted by monument
We might as well agree with ever law in ever country. :rolleyes:

What problem are we exporting?

I never suggested we should have all laws the same. I just find the hypocrisy quite nauseous. Protest against Sellafield, (rightly in my opinion) but export radioactive waste there. Then we have abortion, outlaw it here and watch 1000’s of girls go elsewhere to have one.

The impression some people here seem to think that Ireland is some kind of special place because the rights of the un-differentiated blob of tissue, which may or may not at some point in the future become a baby, are protected here by the outlawing of abortion. But, at the sametime, they can happily sit back and watch as 1000’s of girls go elsewhere to have abortions. So when I say the problem is being exported I maen that because the women in question cannot get the help they want here for what they see as a “problem” they go to another country, thereby “exporting” the “problem.”
:rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Originally posted by MrPudding
I just find the hypocrisy quite nauseous. Protest against Sellafield, (rightly in my opinion) but export radioactive waste there. Then we have abortion, outlaw it here and watch 1000’s of girls go elsewhere to have one.

Humanity in self-serving hypocrisy shocker!

I think you will find that most pro-choice supporters would advocate legalising it here rather than exporting the problem, while most pro-lifer supporters will advocate not only barring such travel but promoting it’s criminalization abroad.

The majority who take the hypocritical stance tend to be undecided, or at least not terribly decided; the average bloke or gal who have arrived at their views over a few pints with mates and would consider themselves against abortion unless it happened to them, or [insert list of unrelated conditions] .

However, that attitude is not limited to the issue of abortion, but may be found in the attitudes expressed over immigration, travellers halting sites (a.k.a. “I’m not anti-traveller, but not in my back yard”) or pretty much everything else, so it’s a little unfair of you to use it when arguing the subject.

the rights of the un-differentiated blob of tissue

And there’s really the kernel of the debate. Human or a blob of tissue? The abortion issue tends to come down to this in the end.

If as your sweeping statement says it is an “un-differentiated blob of tissue” then we’re all arguing about nothing. But it was a sweeping statement. And there lies the debate, only you seem surprised we’re even having it.

Mighty_Mouse

but I wouldn't call it "an extremely ignorant comment" or anywhere near it. A case could be argued that a pick and choose Catholic is by the very nature of his/her actions equivalent to a protestant with a small p (in other words, not easily (or even possibly) slotted into a convenient Anglican/Methodist/etc box) given that they don't necessarily accept all rulings from Rome[1].

I was refering to the ignorance of what "the fuss" was about, not argueing about the similarities between RC and Pr

MrPudding

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Humanity in self-serving hypocrisy shocker!

Good one:D Can't argue with that. Great post as usual TC.

I think you have summed it up nicely. I keep making this mistake. Each time I see one of these debates I come to the realisation that it is pointless. But each time I get sucked in again anyway.

Blob or human is the question. And realistically one side is unlikely to change the views of the other.

MrP

BobsYourAuntie

Corinthian, this is all really better suited to the philosophy board but since you are in need of some education in this area (although it is hardly my job to do so) I will indulge you for now.

"You appear to be using the term ‘informal logic’ to denote the logic that is more convenient to your argument. What you’ve described is more akin to litigation or ‘common wisdom’ than logic."

No. I'm using the term 'informal logic' to describe the procedure for analysing logical arguments constructed using natural language. This is one of the backbones of rational debate and critical argumentation. Since you have clearly never encountered the idea before you might start by examining this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic

You might also study the work of Douglas N. Walton who has published
in this area.


"No you have not. You have simply proven that you cannot see the fluffy pink unicorn in this room. You cannot see an aircraft carrier in the room either, I would assume, yet this is hardly proof that it does not exist."

Actually I have (proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt). If the unicorn cannot be seen in my room then it is reasonable to assume that it is not there. This is how 'reasonable doubt' works in law. To deny this is intellectually perverse (and dishonest). Be careful here - I have not claimed that there is no unicorn present, but I am claiming that it is reasonable to assume there is none unless you have evidence to contradict that of your own eyes. Every court in the land would accept this argument.

It seems you think aristotlian logic applied to complex topics like abortion will result in them being solved or proven to the degree of certainty available within mathematics. You are wrong. Aristotlian logic will not avail us one iota in a matter such as this. We can only attempt a solution that is beyond reasonable doubt at best. And I might remind you that we are now living in the postmodern age and that Aristotle died over 2000 years ago.


"By that logic US abuse of Iraqi prisoners did not exist until evidence appeared and because, prior to this, it was not seen, it did not exist. Obviously this is erroneous."

Not at all. Now you are erecting a strawman argument. I would not claim that the abuse did not exist in actuality. I would claim that it is reasonable to assume it noes not exist until evidence is posited to suggest that it does.


"Thus to argue that simply because the fluffy pink unicorn is not in the room because you cannot see it is not logic but likely a presumptive conclusion."

But I have not come to any conclusion at all! I am merely describing the most conservative postion to hold in a debate until evidence arrives that affects the issue one way or another. As William of Ockham almost said: Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. Why don't you examine this concept at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor


"No, because logic is based upon deduction and may well result in the proving of that which has not been seen or has been proven only because all other alternatives have not - or to quote Sherlock Holmes, “If all other possibilities have been ruled out whatever is left, however unlikely, must be true”."

Now you are quoting fictional characters! Mickey Mouse would be just as useful here. Perhaps you could try Descartes/Hume/Popper (or anyone you like who actually existed and said things for real!) next time and we might understand each other a little better.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BobsYourAuntie
No. I'm using the term 'informal logic' to describe the procedure for analysing logical arguments constructed using natural language. This is one of the backbones of rational debate and critical argumentation.

I’m familiar with it; I was describing your misapplication of it.

Actually I have (proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt). If the unicorn cannot be seen in my room then it is reasonable to assume that it is not there. This is how 'reasonable doubt' works in law. To deny this is intellectually perverse (and dishonest). Be careful here - I have not claimed that there is no unicorn present, but I am claiming that it is reasonable to assume there is none unless you have evidence to contradict that of your own eyes. Every court in the land would accept this argument.

If you want to play with semantics you have proven within reasonable doubt that unicorn is not present within the room. But that is all. Beyond the confine of that room it becomes doubtful that you can prove anything exists.

It seems you think aristotlian logic applied to complex topics like abortion will result in them being solved or proven to the degree of certainty available within mathematics. You are wrong. Aristotlian logic will not avail us one iota in a matter such as this. We can only attempt a solution that is beyond reasonable doubt at best.

While I accept that for social questions a streamlining of proof may be needed to counter the lack of real world absolute proof, you appear to be suggesting the other extreme. The unicorn may not be in the room, but that does not mean that it was not in the room at some stage or it is in another room.

Indeed, most things could reasonably be dismissed by you as non-existent from your room and this is your error. You’re jumping to conclusions and calling it reason.

And I might remind you that we are now living in the postmodern age and that Aristotle died over 2000 years ago.

Does this mean that empiricism is incompatible, living in the postmodern age?

Not at all. Now you are erecting a strawman argument. I would not claim that the abuse did not exist in actuality. I would claim that it is reasonable to assume it noes not exist until evidence is posited to suggest that it does.

It is perfectly reasonable to assume that it is unlikely to exist, however you are in possession of too few facts to make a more definitive statement. This is the distinction I would make that you will not. Hardly a straw man.

But I have not come to any conclusion at all! I am merely describing the most conservative postion to hold in a debate until evidence arrives that affects the issue one way or another.

Actually you’re arriving at a conclusion and arguing that it must be disproved. In the event where no proof can be found for any view, then the most conservative one will always win out - which, of course cannot always be correct (see below).

As William of Ockham almost said: Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

Ockham’s Razor is a good rule of thumb, but hardly a law, so don’t imply that it is. You would do well to consider its limitations - for one example try:

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:Ame3Vo5ZqSUJ:www.hyle.org/journal/issues/3/hoffman.htm+%22Ockham%27s+Razor+and+Chemistry,%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Now you are quoting fictional characters! Mickey Mouse would be just as useful here. Perhaps you could try Descartes/Hume/Popper (or anyone you like who actually existed and said things for real!) next time and we might understand each other a little better.

Does that make the statement less true or you a better person then..?

BobsYourAuntie

Corinthian, you really must stop raising these straw men. I have better things to do than knock them down all day.

On informal logic you said:

"I’m familiar with it; I was describing your misapplication of it."

After I had said this:

"No proposition can be proven to a point of certainty outside of mathematics. In a debate utilising informal logic we can only adduce a proof to certain degrees."

That was my only mention of informal logic until you questioned it. Perhaps you would like to point out how this one sentence is a "misapplication" of informal logic. You seem now to be covering for the fact that you didn't know what informal logic even was!


"If you want to play with semantics you have proven within reasonable doubt that unicorn is not present within the room. But that is all."

That is all I have claimed to prove.


"Beyond the confine of that room it becomes doubtful that you can prove anything exists."

I have not attempted to prove anything else. Are you trying for another straw man?


Ok the quotes went screwy in the next part of your post so forgive me if I'm taking this next bit up wrong...

"While I accept that for social questions a streamlining of proof may be needed to counter the lack of real world absolute proof, you appear to be suggesting the other extreme."

I am not suggesting anything of the sort. You seem to want to read it that way for some reason though I have given clear indication that I do not hold that position.

"The unicorn may not be in the room, but that does not mean that it was not in the room at some stage or it is in another room."

I have made no claims relating to other rooms or other times. Straw man ahoy!

"Indeed, most things could reasonably be dismissed by you as non-existent from your room and this is your error. You’re jumping to conclusions and calling it reason."

As I have clearly stated, I am arriving at NO CONCLUSION WHATSOEVER. I am simply laying out grounds for the most reasonable position to take before you even begin to argue.


"Does this mean that empiricism is incompatible, living in the postmodern age?"

I have not attacked empiricism here. However I would probably make an argument(this is hardly the place for it though) in favour of fuzzy logic over aristotlean logic when it comes to dealing with the real world. We do not live in a computer program. This is not the matrix. Aristotlean logic is not sufficient to deal with the multivalent world we inhabit etc etc. You might check out the work of Bark Kosko for more on this.


"It is perfectly reasonable to assume that it is unlikely to exist, however you are in possession of too few facts to make a more definitive statement."

I have made no such definitive statement. Yawn...

"This is the distinction I would make that you will not. Hardly a straw man."

I have made that distinction quite clear. You have CLEARLY attacked a position that I made quite clear I did not hold. That is the very definition of a straw man.


"Actually you’re arriving at a conclusion and arguing that it must be disproved."

I have already denied that I have made any such conclusion. I simply said that LACKING ANY EVIDENCE either way, the conservative position is the one to take. I have said NO MORE than that. Why do you persist in seeing things that are not there?


"Ockham’s Razor is a good rule of thumb, but hardly a law, so don’t imply that it is."

I have not suggested (and I do not) that Ockham's razor is a law or anything of the sort. Another Straw man bites the dust.

"You would do well to consider its limitations - for one example try:"

I am aware of these limitations. I did not suggest that any kind of Truth/proof can be reached that relies on the razor. Outside of maths, formal logic and computer science, I do not think that any type of philosophical Truth/proof can be attained AT ALL.


"Does that make the statement less true or you a better person then..?"

Now you're just getting nasty... I'm merely suggesting that there may be better minds to bring to a discussion on logic debate and argumentation than Sam Spade,
Miss Marple or Charlie Chan.