Anti-abortion advocates, including Republican lawmakers and state officials, want the EPA to review mifepristone as a water contaminant. Scientists say there’s no evidence it harms the environment or people.
While there is no scientific evidence that abortion medication is contaminating Americans’ water supply, it has nonetheless become a central claim by the anti-abortion movement. Activists, Instagram influencers and Republican Party officials — including state and federal lawmakers — are doubling down on what experts describe as a disinformation campaign that mixes environmental policy and reproductive rights, and risks exploiting legitimate concerns about clean water.
One of us clearly didnt read the article as nowhere in the article is anyone arguing that we should test for everything(the thing you argued against). You dismissing the calls to test the water for these medications with “well we cant afford to test for everything” is absolutely a strawman because you are addressing an argument that isnt being made. Your statement about “non scientists” is an indirect appeal to authority that attempts to frame the topic as one that can only be broached by “scientists”. An appeal to authority logical fallacy is an informal logical fallacy where a claim is deemed true solely because an authority figure or expert asserts it, rather than providing sufficient evidence or reasoning. By dismissing the people who want the water supply tested for the abortion medications as “non-scientists” you are attempting to imply that the counter argument “we shouldn’t test the water” is true based solely on what some “scientists” are arguing. Furthermore, you didnt actually quote anyone in your argument, it was solely an indirect appeal to authority.
So you still didn’t read the article?
They did tests.
Furthermore, listening to scientists about science is not an appeal to authority.
If you didn’t get the subtext on the statements about resources and needs with regard to water testing, perhaps try to actually read it.
One of us clearly cant read. Show me where in that article any one argued for or against “testing for everything” which is what you originally tried to argue against.
Listening to scientists about science may not be an appeal to authority but trying to imply that an argument is either valid or invalid based on whether or not the person who said it is a scientist sure as shit is.
In the part that says they have other concerns with water pollution and the other part that says just how little abortion medication is prescribed in relation to other potential contaminants. Then there’s the part that lists known contaminants and how much of a financial and beaurocratic headache it is to…
Wait, why am I even doing this? You started a debate based on the headline alone, tried to name logical fallacies like the magic words to winning an argument, and now you’re saying I can’t point to expert opinion because who knows if they’re really experts.
This debate is devolving into plato’s cave. Do we really know anything? How can we even trust the tests are done by real scientists IF WE DON’T KNOW WHO IS A SCIENTIST?
I’m not replying again, you clearly have enough on your hands arguing with yourself.
So it doesn’t say that and you were creating a strawman, great. Thanks for playing. I see no point in reading the rest of that.