The Republican Party

As usual, proponents of abortion rely on euphemisms to disguise what they really want. Using terms like fetus to dehumanize the baby, "terminate the pregnancy" instead of killing your baby. A fetus is a baby merely a baby that has not been born. I have already proven through my Princeton source from our previous debate that the fetus is a human baby. Semantics or not. Frankfurter concedes that there are options besides killing your baby which means if you think that killing your baby should be an option then it is without cause. He also concedes that the fetus is alive and human. But he states that because they have not been born they have no right to live. However, there is nothing magic about the vagina that confers the right to live by passing through it. Every living human being has the right to life until they infringe upon the life of another. He also states that the fetal mind is only developing. Completely irrelevant. the mind continues to be in development sometimes into the mid twenties. But even so, it is not cognitive ability that confers the right to life either. Frankfurter also talks about overpopulation. Fun fact, human overpopulation is a myth. Unlike other species our human ingenuity has increased our ability to increase land productivity to such an extent that the land we're using can sustain us for the foreseeable future. So overpopulation cannot be used as an excuse to kill your baby. Even more, the largest demographic problem facing many areas is not too many people, but too few babies! so killing your baby will actually increase problems rather than reducing them. https://www.nytimes.com... https://www.forbes.com... He claims that since some parents are against adoption, that they should be allowed to kill their baby instead. This line of reasoning can be applied to post birth children as well. If a parent does not believe in medicine, yes they exist, and their child falls ill and the parent refuses to allow treatment, the state will remove custody from the parents and administer the treatment. Why? because you don't get to decide who gets to live and who has to die based on what you believe. Frankfurter accuses me of utilizing a number of logical fallacies. I will explain why I haven't used them and explain how he has misapplied them. First is the false dilemma fallacy. Also known as the false dichotomy, the false dilemma fallacy is when you present only two possible options when in fact there are more. Simply eliminating one as morally reprehensible is in no way the false dichotomy fallacy. Next is the appeal to emotion fallacy. First, I never made the claim that it's emotions that confer the right to live. I never made that claim in round which means that frankfurter committed the strawman logical fallacy. Also, the example he gives is not what the appeal to emotion fallacy is. You didn't catch me committing any fallacies sorry to burst your bubble. Just because you don't want to give your child to a stranger does not give you the right to kill your child. You make it sound as if they kill them out of concern for their well being which makes no sense. Petitio principii or "begging the question" is a fallacy that would go like this: the fetus has the right to life because they have the right to life. That's not what I said. I said the fetus is alive and human and is therefore entitled to the inalienable human rights one of which is life. Again he misuses a fallacy. No, being poor is not a poor decision. Being poor then having a child you can't afford is a poor decision. He brings up the New Deal next. the New Deal is largely overrated in stopping the Great Depression in fact economists make the argument that the New Deal made the Depression worse. The economists over at the Mises Institute can explain it better than I. https://mises.org... I don't deny that climate change happens, merely that it isn't that important, and we certainly don't have the means to do anything about it now. Instead of reducing our ability to expand our economies, we should be focusing on new technologies to make renewable energy a viable option which can only happen through industry. And the study you're looking for came from the American Meteorological Society Journal of Climate. type Lewis and Curry and you'll find it. The graph that you show can be used to debunk your own point. As we can see from your model, which supports what I said earlier about us being on the tail end of a cooling period, the point coincided with the end of the little ice age. Another question is why, if coal is solely to blame, was the warmest period in earths history, the Eocene period, 53 million years before the first factory was built? Because current climate trends aren't that different from how they've always been. the earth gets cold, then it gets warm, then it gets cold again etc. Humans probably do have a hand in making the planet warmer but not in any catastrophic way. In this next section, frankfurter says if you live in a crime riddled are then you should just move. This solution is very much against poor people. If the poor can't afford to just buy a new house, then they can't move and they need a way to defend themselves. He also compares a single street to an entire city which is an interesting move. I could just as easily draw a comparison between Democrat Detroit and Republican Jacksonville, Florida which has a much lower crime rate.https://www.bestplaces.net... Like most gun control advocates, Frankfurter makes the fatal error of assuming that most criminals get their guns legally. A study led by epidemiologist Anthony Fabio concluded that in Pittsburgh, 80% of recovered guns were in the hands of the perpetrator illegally. Banning guns will not keep them out of the hands of criminals. When something is made illegal, it is inevitable that a black market for that good will form. Cocaine, marijuana, heroin, meth, and many more illegal substances are not excessively difficult for someone to obtain if they put their mind to it. The US government learned this during prohibition and now is relearning it as the war on drugs comes to an end. Why then would anyone assume that banning guns would mean that no one could access them? In 1994, Australia passed huge firearm legislation that banned huge numbers of semi-automatic firearms and created a buyback program that was intended to get them out of the hands of civilians. The buyback was not optional of course. If you refused to sell your firearm then you would be arrested and tried for possession of an illegal weapon. The intention of these laws was to reduce the crime rate within the country. Instead, the laws paved the way for an illegal gun trade to form in Australia that "Police admit they cannot eradicate"" as mentioned by the south Australian newspaper the Adelaide Advertiser. Many of the people that are being supplied these weapons are not even criminals. According to The Sporting Shooters" Association of Australia and Franz Csaszar"a professor at the University of Vienna"the buyback program saw a compliance level of around 19-20 percent. So people who are otherwise law-abiding citizens were made criminals by a law passed that was intended to target criminals.Australia saw almost no decrease in its homicide rate. This is comparable to background checks as it will drive criminals underground and turn law abiding citizens into criminals. http://sites.psu.edu... This takes down the rest of his point as well. He also commits the loaded question fallacy by asking "don't you think violence should end." Frankfurter commits and ad hominem logical fallacy by calling me a paranoid schizophrenic after conceding that an authoritarian government could happen. News flash. The first step an authoritarian government takes is to remove guns from the people. It's evil dictator 101. Frankfurter also conveniently ignores my point on police response times. Frankfurter does not explain why any of my points are wrong, merely says that they are. Being economically dependent on the government is bad because you can never be independent. You can never stand on your own two feet and no longer be poor. If you are dependent on the government that, by virtue of dependence, means that poverty has been perpetuated. This is damage. People do not starve on the streets in the United States. In fact, back during the 1980's when conservative economic practices were employed, we saw massive increase in the economy which led to the betterment of peoples lives whilst also fostering their fiscal independence. our economic theories do work. it's just that whenever we get to use them some Keynesian comes along and ruins everything in four to eight years. Rich people do not have all of the money. that's not how economics works. I don't have the characters left to explain this to you again just look back at our other debates. Frankfurter commits yet another ad hominem by calling me selfish and greedy.