Morality of abortion

Nov 2018
5,531
3,003
Rocky Mountains
...The issue is the question of when that right begins, and why a given starting point is chosen. That's what we have been arguing about. I know it's been a long thread, so you may not remember, but I haven't exactly been arguing for a given starting point. I have been challenging whatever starting point you or others present. It's an important issue, especially if you care about rights. And the answer isn't actually as easy as people wish. Most pro-choicers are against elective later term abortions, but they are unwilling to discuss the point at which they are for them. Many won't even discuss later abortions because they are such a small percentage of abortions, 1.3%, which ignores the large raw number of about 50,000.
I don't expect to change anyone's mind on the matter, so we don't really need to continue. But I hope you can see that your opposition isn't necessarily reliant on religious superstition. There's actually a lot more to the matter than a simple "God said so" or "It's none of my business".
Concern for the sanctity of human life would still necessitate a different concern for different matters involving the sanctity of human life. But rather than get into all that, it probably makes sense for you to guess at my position on tangent matters from which you can infer my motives concerning this matter, thereby ignoring your logical inconsistencies demonstrated in my earlier posts. If your going to end in ad hominem anyway, there's no need to twist yourself up to get there.
Frequently when pressed to resolve inherent inconsistencies, RWingers whine about "ad homineum" or complain about the inconsistencies of others. You asserted a complex moral issue. Presumably that is derived from some sort of value framework or philosophy. You should clarify the predictable inconsistences I raised in your moral position rather than denying that any exist.
 
May 2019
244
26
US
Frequently when pressed to resolve inherent inconsistencies, RWingers whine about "ad homineum" or complain about the inconsistencies of others.
If people pointing out your logical fallacies bothers you, you should stop using them. In your post, where you quoted me, I literally tell you “ but I haven't exactly been arguing for a given starting point.” But rather I am “I have been challenging whatever starting point you or others present”, and the reason is that “Most pro-choicers are against elective later term abortions, but they are unwilling to discuss the point at which they are for them”.

From that, you decide NOT to tackle the issue, which is in keeping with what I said about you. Rather, you decide to “guess” at my position stating “I am going to guess that your concerns about abortion do no extend to capital punishment or lethal force or warfare or euthanizia or social responsibility for preventable mass casualties or to government actions against famine and disease.

When I correctly point out that, though these issues all involve life and death, they are different topics with different things to consider, you decide that the common thread of “sanctity of life” makes them essentially the same issue. Which then gives you cause to imply that I am actually just a misogynist. All while avoiding my actual point.

You should clarify the predictable inconsistences I raised in your moral position rather than denying that any exist.
I suppose there may be inconsistencies in the opinions you invent for others to have so that you don’t have to discuss their actual opinion, but those aren’t my inconsistencies. My first paragraph in this post repeats in quotes what my position is. It is a perfectly consistent challenge with a predictably avoidant response from you.
 
May 2019
244
26
US
How would asking this: Is that your position too? provide anyone with their position?
You say "too" as though you presented someone's position. I have literally never seen anyone present the position you presented. Even from people who I have seen call it murder. It isn't my position. I don't know whose it is.
 
Dec 2019
58
15
U.S. arkansas
Hitler would be proud . Even he didn't kill as many people that have been pulled and torn to pieces and drug from the womb. There is an account of one child being drug from the womb and the place in a closet so the butchers wouldn't have to hear it crying as it slowly died . They just made jokes and laughed about the dying child as they got ready to do the same thing again to another baby . No doubt this has happened many times . The only reason this episode was revealed is one of the so called nurses through a horror tormented conscious spoke up to reveal what was going on .
 
Dec 2018
2,565
1,555
Unionville Indiana
You say "too" as though you presented someone's position. I have literally never seen anyone present the position you presented. Even from people who I have seen call it murder. It isn't my position. I don't know whose it is.
"Abortion is murder" and "equal protection" under law for fetuses are typical examples of the rhetoric of the anti-choice movement. The zealots, in the movement, mean just what they say as far as I know.

Here's a recent example of the horrific legal and medical consequences of the rhetoric when a state legislature gets involved:

 
  • Like
Reactions: Kode and Clara007
May 2019
244
26
US
"Abortion is murder" and "equal protection" under law for fetuses are typical examples of the rhetoric of the anti-choice movement. The zealots, in the movement, mean just what they say as far as I know.

Here's a recent example of the horrific legal and medical consequences of the rhetoric when a state legislature gets involved:

I guess I don't know anyone from Ohio. Makes me kind of wonder if anyone has ever actually tried to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy.
Anyway, how does a pro-choicer determine when an abortion is appropriate or acceptable, given the gradual nature of human development? That was the topic after all, remember? If you are in favor of abortion when a C section would suffice, this doesn't apply to you. Most pro-choicers I talk to aren't there though.
 
Nov 2018
5,531
3,003
Rocky Mountains
If people pointing out your logical fallacies bothers you, you should stop using them. In your post, where you quoted me, I literally tell you “ but I haven't exactly been arguing for a given starting point.” But rather I am “I have been challenging whatever starting point you or others present”, and the reason is that “Most pro-choicers are against elective later term abortions, but they are unwilling to discuss the point at which they are for them”.

From that, you decide NOT to tackle the issue, which is in keeping with what I said about you. Rather, you decide to “guess” at my position stating “I am going to guess that your concerns about abortion do no extend to capital punishment or lethal force or warfare or euthanizia or social responsibility for preventable mass casualties or to government actions against famine and disease.

When I correctly point out that, though these issues all involve life and death, they are different topics with different things to consider, you decide that the common thread of “sanctity of life” makes them essentially the same issue. Which then gives you cause to imply that I am actually just a misogynist. All while avoiding my actual point.



I suppose there may be inconsistencies in the opinions you invent for others to have so that you don’t have to discuss their actual opinion, but those aren’t my inconsistencies. My first paragraph in this post repeats in quotes what my position is. It is a perfectly consistent challenge with a predictably avoidant response from you.
Once again, you have circled back you asserting ambiguity as the central objection YOU have to abortion. Let us set aside your implied AND expressed moral objections, which are inherently connected to your objection to late term abortion. Why does it matter some women have some objections to abortion at certain stages under certain conditions? It is a complex decision that should involve many parties with variable interest over the term of the pregnancy. At 6 weeks, the female is primarily concerned. At 40 weeks, society has an important role. Pregnancy is a continum and asserting control over women simply because you cannot determine a specific date for acceptable vs unacceptable abortion is a fixation with minutia as a false excuse for control. Medical decisions are complex and not for those unable to accept some uncertainty or ambiguity.
 
Nov 2013
2,766
1,225
NM
Hitler would be proud . Even he didn't kill as many people that have been pulled and torn to pieces and drug from the womb. There is an account of one child being drug from the womb and the place in a closet so the butchers wouldn't have to hear it crying as it slowly died . They just made jokes and laughed about the dying child as they got ready to do the same thing again to another baby . No doubt this has happened many times . The only reason this episode was revealed is one of the so called nurses through a horror tormented conscious spoke up to reveal what was going on .
Is there a link to an article or news story or something to support this argument? That would be helpful. TMK, abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia was imprisoned for life without parole for murder. He's the only one I'm aware of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: catus felis