The Republican Party

First, you concede in your second paragraph that a fetus is human but then say that it is wrong to humanize a fetus in your first paragraph. You need to pick a position. It is always wrong to kill an innocent human. It's a simple as that. Consciousness does not confer the right to live the right to live has already been established when consciousness is established. If you say that only the conscious have the right to life then this can be applied to many post birth humans. I read your article on sexism and it doesn't make any real arguments merely makes a claim. The claim is a counterfactual generalization and straw man fallacy. It completely ignores the arguments pro lifers make and instead simply fabricates arguments that weren't made. It also assumes that right wingers are inherently sexist which is objectively false. The source also commits the cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy or "with this therefore because of this." in english. Even if we assume that if the pro lifers they talk about are sexist, that this is the cause of being pro life. This, again, ignores arguments and instead makes an ad hominem attack on irrelevant character traits. Next, Frankfurter makes the claim that in order to have the right to life, you must be aware that you are being killed. This is ridiculous. If someone kills a comatose hospital patient, the patient is unaware that they have been killed yet the killer would still be considered a murderer. This ties back to my earlier point about consciousness coming after the right to life which is established at conception. Frankfurter also restates his claim on population control. He makes a claim later in this post that overpopulation is not a myth because there are more births than deaths. He points to a birth and death tracker. This completely ignores all of my previous points about WHY overpopulation isn't a problem. Also, just as a side note about his rant against President Trump, Democrats are doing so poorly that they may fail to take back congress later this year. the black vote is slipping, the millennial vote is slipping. Democrats are in trouble. the Black approval rating of President Trump doubled after the Kanye West "controversy" If Democrats lose the black vote, they will have a hard time winning elections. In this next point about killing your baby Frankfurter again contradicts himself when he concedes that they are babies being killed. He also misuses the false dichotomy fallacy again. He also again concedes that killing your baby isn't a necessity which shows nothing but bloodlust. If you don't need to kill a human which frankfurter has already conceded they are, but want to do it anyway, that's a problem. He asks "why would you interfere with people you don't know?" because killing babies is wrong and we should stop people from killing their baby. All of frankfurters next point boils down to parents have the right to kill their baby until it starts to look like a baby. It's DNA and chromosomes that make you human not what you look like. The single cellular zygote is a human life and is thus entitled to the right to life. Just because it's a "bundle of cells' doesn't mean anything. At our core, we're all bundles of cells. We just have more of them than the Zygote. He says there are qualifications to be considered alive. True. and the fetus meets them. I could use my princeton source as usual, but this time I will cite the Lozier institute. https://lozierinstitute.org... I don't know what my taxes have to do with anything, but I do pay income tax just like everyone else just to name one. In fact, the city that I live in levies an additional tax on income that many cities don't. So odds are I'm paying more taxes than you are. If they go in with a coat hanger, and a ban on abortion passes, this would be considered homicide and most wouldn't risk it. His paragraph restating his point on overpopulation has already been addressed and the sources I cited last time answer all of his questions. He concludes the paragraph with unfounded ad hominem logical fallacies. He asks me to name one place where underpopulation is the problem. I never claimed underpopulation was the problem. I claimed that too few babies was the problem. One such place, believe it or not, is China. There is a low birth rate in china according to the source I cited previously, and by 2030 they will be forced to shoulder the burden of an elderly population while having a shrinking work force. This is a major problem. He is correct in saying that it isn't a problem if we do the right things, but killing your babies isn't the right thing because it leads to problems of it's own. (not to mention the baby killing.) If you read my source it talks about other things that are correct to do. Abortion isn't one of them. He says that I have contradicted myself by when I say "you don't get to decide who gets to live and who has to die based on what you believe." because I am deciding who lives. The default is life. Always. Life continues in most cases in the womb unless we take actions to end it. I advocate for not taking lethal action. This is different from taking a lethal action. Did you call me Mr. Buttinski? What are you? two? Parents don't get to kill their child. That isn't a choice they get to make. False Dichotomy is when you say that there are only two options when there are more. limiting the number of options while acknowledging the existence of many other options is not false dichotomy. It's pretty close to the opposite actually. logicallyfallacious.com puts it like this When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes. False dilemmas are usually characterized by "either this or that" language, but can also be characterized by omissions of choices. The "omission of choices part would be if I were to say that abortion is not a possible thing to do. Saying that the choice is morally repugnant and should not be allowed is not pretending it isn't a possible course of action. it is an option, just an evil one. And I don't use that word lightly. I have in fact provided evidence that the fetus is alive, and my arguments are completely emotionless. I appeal to morality, to science, but not to emotions. Even if I did, using emotions alone is not fallacious. If I said that dead babies are sad therefore vote for me, that would be fallacious reasoning. But I didn't say that. If you think that you're an expert at fallacies think again, I've been studying these for a long time. I know them when I see them and you are misapplying the terms. Again, I did provide evidence that they were alive, and for another thing, saying that something is a right therefore it should be granted is not circular reasoning. look back at my example, "the fetus has the right to life therefore it has the right to life" is different from " the fetus has the right to life therefore they should be granted that right." At no point did I say that being poor is a decision in fact, I said the opposite of that. I said "No, being poor is not a poor decision. Being poor then having a child you can't afford is a poor decision." You also keep saying that there are other ways to not have to pay for your child, conceding my point. But then you say that they would need to pay for their child. This is objectively false as I've already shown numerous times throughout this debate. Also, in a capitalist system, the rich to not benefit from everyone else being poor because poor people can't buy their product then they too become poor. It's only in a moneyless system like communism that a government can keep it's citizens poor without consequences. Frankfurters point on the new deal ignores the source I cited from the Mises institute that outlines exactly how FDR made the depression worse. He also gave the federal government a massive credit card that they've been swiping ever since burying the country in debt. World War Two ended the depression not FDR. Now that frankfurter got the study from a reliable source he drops all of my arguments about climate change. There's little we can do right now to help the polar bears without driving millions around the world into poverty and severely stunting the growth of developing countries. We need to invest in technology to help. not prevent that technology from being produced by diminishing industry. Something tells me that we're going to agree on more things in the next round given your outline. but okay.