Lets see anti-abortionists argue against this one

[Cephus]

It's no different from how many people here appeal to "science" as authority. The fact of the matter is that most people here tend to require that someone else has said something before you did in order for it to be accepted.

We're not talking about what others do, we're talking about what you're doing right now and you're employing a logical fallacy as your sole support for your argument. Others may do the same, but the fact that they do it doesn't make it any more acceptable or logically defensible for you to do it.

Two wrongs don't make a right, as they say.

[Cephus]

There may be circumstances under which taking that chance might be the best option.

When it's your life on the line, you're more than welcome to make that choice for yourself. How would you like it if other people made that choice and imposed it on you. That's exactly what often happens with anti-abortionists. They want to stop EVERYONE ELSE from having abortions.

Medicines could be viewed as a way of running from the predator of illness/injury that has already harmed you - as opposed to, say, just sitting there and letting the illness/injury kill you.

But of course, that's not how nature works, you're just desperately trying to justify your own position with a bunch of "what if" statements.

[Cephus]

I think the abortion was medically necessary. She is so young, i doubt she would be mature enough to handle the changes your body goes through while pregnant, even just the hormone fluctuations. It's terrible they found out so late though....the abortion itself will probably be traumatic to her as well.

Everyone said it was medically necessary, her doctors said she was simply not physically equipped to either carry the twins to term, not to mention give birth to them. There's no question whatsoever that if the abortion was not performed, there's an almost 100% chance that she *AND* the twins would have died.

Of course, the RCC couldn't care less who dies, they just insist that their primitive religion is followed regardless.

I think they should have hung that scumbag.

I hope they still do, personally.

[The Bacon Guy]

Everyone said it was medically necessary, her doctors said she was simply not physically equipped to either carry the twins to term, not to mention give birth to them. There's no question whatsoever that if the abortion was not performed, there's an almost 100% chance that she *AND* the twins would have died.

Did it say this anywhere in the article, or are you just pulling it out of thin air?

[Aussie]

Did it say this anywhere in the article, or are you just pulling it out of thin air?

"We don't know if she will develop the pregnancy up to the end because of the structure of her body. It is a big risk for her,'' the doctor who confirmed her pregnancy before she was taken to the institute, Jose Severiano Cavalcanti, told the Diario de Pernambuco.

"She doesn't have a pelvis able to support a gestation of twins,'' he said.

Pretty easy conclusion here Bacon, not everything needs to be spelled out.

[The Bacon Guy]

Right, so "big risk" to the mother's life translates into there being no question of "an almost 100% chance" that all three will die?

I'm afraid I will need things to be 'spelled out' a bit more before I unquestioningly accept this illogical leap.

[Aussie]

Right, so "big risk" to the mother's life translates into there being no question of "an almost 100% chance" that all three will die?

I'm afraid I will need things to be 'spelled out' a bit more before I unquestioningly accept this illogical leap.

So you'd be happy for your child to go ahead if there was only a 90% chance of her dying?

[Cephus]

Did it say this anywhere in the article, or are you just pulling it out of thin air?

Her doctor, Jose Severiano Cavalcanti: “She doesn’t have a pelvis able to support a gestation of twins.”

[The Bacon Guy]

So you'd be happy for your child to go ahead if there was only a 90% chance of her dying?

A) I don't see 90% anywhere in the article either.
B) I neither have nor want a daughter.
C) That's an appeal to emotion.
D) That has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue I was responding to.
E) I'm pro abortion, so addressing me personally doesn't address any anti-abortion arguments or stances.

Her doctor, Jose Severiano Cavalcanti: “She doesn’t have a pelvis able to support a gestation of twins.”

Which he took to be a "big risk". Big isn't defined as "almost 100%".

[Aussie]

A) I don't see 90% anywhere in the article either.
B) I neither have nor want a daughter.
C) That's an appeal to emotion.
D) That has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue I was responding to.
E) I'm pro abortion, so addressing me personally doesn't address any anti-abortion arguments or stances.


Which he took to be a "big risk". Big isn't defined as "almost 100%".

It's not an appeal to emotion, it's an appeal to common sense.

Does not have the pelvis to support gestation - how much more definitive does this get? Cannot gestate child, cannot, is not able, nada, zip, cannot grow child in child, does not fit, like trying to grow a football in a basketball.

[The Bacon Guy]

It's not an appeal to emotion,

Trying to disprove a line of reasoning by asking whether an emotionally involved person would follow this reasoning is exactly what an appeal to emotion is.

Does not have the pelvis to support gestation -

In the same way that I don't have a back to support heavy lifting. Doesn't mean I'll die if I lift something heavy; it just means it's medically inadvisable.

how much more definitive does this get? Cannot gestate child, cannot, is not able, nada, zip, cannot grow child in child, does not fit, like trying to grow a football in a basketball.

Which is your personal interpretation of what the doctor said. And it's not a particularly logical interpretation. If there was no chance of the girl being able to carry the twins, he would not have said 'risk'; he's have said 'certainty'.

[Aussie]

In the same way that I don't have a back to support heavy lifting. Doesn't mean I'll die if I lift something heavy; it just means it's medically inadvisable.

Now you're being irrational, yo'ure comparing a 9 year old carrying and birthing twins to heavy lifting! No, its like saying you can pass a bowling ball through your anus, doesn't mean you'll die, but you'll most likelly bleed out.

Which is your personal interpretation of what the doctor said. And it's not a particularly logical interpretation. If there was no chance of the girl being able to carry the twins, he would not have said 'risk'; he's have said 'certainty'.

I give up, honestly. Obviously you think it's medically feasible for a 9 year old to give birth to twins, depsite her doctor disagreeing with you. Come and talk to me after you've passed that bowling ball.