It is certainly true that those who support abortion are monsters...

[sakinago]

No, this is the central question to the abortion debate. Is a fetus life, and does it have a right to life. That question was not addressed by Row V wade, doesn’t even apply to the 4th amendment since it rights do not extend to the infringing on other rights, if that’s still in question, and also doesn’t apply since it doesn’t have anything to do with privacy since it’s an incredibly unprivate act that both the medical community and the government both keep extensive records on. Unless of course you believe government has no right to get involved in anything pertaining to medicine, which I’m taking an educated guess you don’t. RVW, is also a violation of both the 9th and 10th amendments. Which I’m taking an educated guess you were all for the 10th when the SCOTUS stuck down DOMA and said it was a states right issue since the fed did not have those powers granted in the enumerated rights. And then 2 years later cited the 9th saying stated have no say in the matter. You could argue the 9th, but then again the government was given the responsibility to protect life. So that’s out of the question for RVW.

Stop avoiding the actual question behind abortion. You should’nt have to avoid it like you are if you have all the answers. Is a fetus life, and does fall under the protection of life.

The question is not when does life begin. Life begins at birth. That is the legal definition of life since the dawn of time.

You wish to ascribe some other definition to the beginning of life in order that you can enforce your definition of morality on pregnant women.

Your sole purpose in this is to strip a woman of her privacy rights and her right to security of person. There is no way that you can frame an abortion law that doesn’t say that women aren’t allowed to make their own decisions in these matters, in which case, the Handmaids Tale is becoming reality.

Abortion laws don’t affect the rich. They will either find a doctor who will accommodate their wishes, or go to a jurisdiction where abortion is legal. It is the poor who suffer under these laws.

Society suffers too because unwanted children are lower in IQ, higher in delinquency levels, and generally don’t become as productive.

Well shit, didn’t know that IQ levels relied on whether or not the child was wanted, that’s some pretty interesting science. Almost said something way too mean, I’ll abstain. Is that some new epigenetics stuff coming fresh out of the world of science that you so clearly inhabit?

And no that is not even close to the definition of the beginning of life, not by law, not even by science.

And handmaidens tale, wow...Amazon comes out with one show and all of a sudden, people like me who believe in the importance of using birth control so they don’t pregnant, is the exact same as justifying raping women because that’s all their good for. Forgive me if I think birth control is vastly more important and vastly less morally wrong (birth control isn’t morally wrong) than killing you’re own offspring.

So if life begins at birth, why is it we have time limits on abortion? That doesn’t make a whole lotta sense. Why is it it’s a double homicide when a pregnant women is murdered, even if she’s on her way to get an abortion? That’s also weird. Why is it a fetus meets all the requirements of life as defined by science? I’m not understanding any of this, please explain. How is it life all of a sudden just happens once a fully formed friggen baby passes through the birth canal, in the words of Ron Burgendy makes me think “boy that escalated quickly.”

Why is a double homicide when a pg woman is killed, because she apparently has not had an abortion and maybe didn't want one, that is why. Its a well know fact you GOP are pro birth , not pro life.

It's still a somewhat hypocritical stance, legally speaking. If the fetus is not a person and can be aborted at any time without repercussion, how can it be murdered? If it is a person; or if any human being, whether a person or not, has a legal right to life; how can abortion on demand be legal? Or how can abortion be about simply a woman's control over her own body, if legally she is making the decision to kill another protected human life?

Are there any other situations in which a person might be killed on demand, yet killing that person is still murder? The closest examples that come to mind would be someone on life support or on death row, and neither of those examples quite fits. Someone who is being kept alive through mechanical ventilation, who is in a vegetative state, still would not be killed. Instead, such a person might be removed from life support; a fine distinction, perhaps, but an important one. The death row inmate will be killed, true, but as a punishment by the state.

The idea that it's just a woman's body, that the fetus is merely 'a clump of cells', does not make a lot of sense alongside the idea that killing a pregnant woman's fetus (before a viable stage) constitutes murder.

If there were a genetic test for gayness, Republicans would approve of abortion.

Republicans hate gays that much.

Right...that’s why Peter Thiel got a standing ovation at the GOP national convention right after saying he’s proud to be gay...but according to the left abortion isn’t wrong, so it shouldn’t be a problem for you if there were a gay test and republicans hated the gays that much. Right? I thought it was a women’s choice? You wanna field that question for us Deanrd?

 

[Montrovant]

If you'll go back, you'll see that this whole discussion (with me, not the thread, obviously), began when I responded to a statement that whether a fetus is alive is the only question. It's also been at least implied, if not directly stated, that the abortion issue has been decided by science, as though a moral judgement cannot be made in the face of current human reproductive and developmental knowledge. I have been trying to limit my participation to those things since.

Yes I know that. The point of disagreement is you seem to imply that because opposing sides can make moral arguments neither is false or correct. It’s a post-modernist stance you seem to be taking. Post-modernism is fine up until it gets to the point that because there are different interpretations, none is better than the other, it’s all just a power game being played.

Well, I think I'd put it more that none of the moral arguments are objectively correct, but I'm not trying to argue that, either.

I started this trying to argue that the way the arguments are put is important. Saying that the only question to answer is whether a fetus is alive or not basically dismisses any opinion that accepts a fetus as alive yet still favors any legal abortion. It's not discussing, or even arguing, it's making a declaration which doesn't allow for any other viewpoint. If the point is to discuss or argue, it is likely to make any such discussion or argument much harder to come by IMO.

Well then you missed my point many times. I stated over and over, that the rest of the discussion was secondary to the question of life and death. Not much of a point in discussing ways to curb murder if it hasn’t even been established that murder is right or wrong and is still legal. It’s even worse to flat out ignore that question right off the bat. In the abortion discussion, you can’t skip to the “y’all don’t care about life if y’all don’t do XYZ” when the other side is having a totally different conversation on the fact that they think you’re killing babies. It’s a dishonest line of reasoning not intended to get anywhere, because it’s a distractionary red herring, that also allows the person to strawman someone on secondary issues (secondary is a forgiving term in this case).

One side says “abortion is wrong and here’s why.” The other side instead doesn’t respond with, no it’s ok, here’s why, they respond with “you don’t care about life, because you don’t care about XYZ.” Now the first side has to respond to a non response on, what was it, like 6 different issues like housing and food stamps? That’s the absurdity of what we’re dealing with here, and that’s it’s important to stay on topic.

I think both 'sides' often do that sort of thing, actually, but you're right, plenty of people go into the "Well why don't you care about them after they are born?" kind of argument.

I've said before that one of the big reasons I think abortion arguments are so often pointless is that the people arguing can be unwilling or unable to acknowledge the perspective of the other side. I don't mean anyone needs to accept the validity of another's opinion, but the arguments too often are framed in ways that almost cannot be responded to; if a person believes abortion is murder, how can someone else argue "if you don't like it, don't do it"? If a person believes a newly fertilized egg is not yet a person, what response will they have if someone else says they believe in killing babies?

Most arguments could do with more groundwork, more clarity in the sides agreeing just what is in contention. I think that is magnified with abortion because of the nature of the contention.

So when I was rounding up the herd of cats calling me pro-death for not agreeing with Bernie talking points that would cost triple the entire amount of money that is circulating on earth (from their own estimations), how was that me ignoring the other side of the debate? I even answered all their ridiculous statements in full. I’m up for debating any aspect on this topic, including the personhood talking point, which I have already addressed. I’m not ignoring shit.

Did I say you were ignoring anything? You seem to be taking very general statements personally here.

 

[Montrovant]

Well, I think I'd put it more that none of the moral arguments are objectively correct, but I'm not trying to argue that, either.

I started this trying to argue that the way the arguments are put is important. Saying that the only question to answer is whether a fetus is alive or not basically dismisses any opinion that accepts a fetus as alive yet still favors any legal abortion. It's not discussing, or even arguing, it's making a declaration which doesn't allow for any other viewpoint. If the point is to discuss or argue, it is likely to make any such discussion or argument much harder to come by IMO.

I personally am planning to dismiss any argument that says, "Yes, that is a living infant, and I still think we should kill him if he's inconvenient." I do not wish to talk to anyone who does not dismiss that as evil and unacceptable. I wish to run far, far away from such people, because they are dangerous.

I imagine the argument that infants should be killed is even less common than the argument that a sperm is a separate living organism, but I completely understand not wanting to talk to anyone pushing it.

Of course it is, because it's abhorrent and marks you as the sort of evil that causes invocations of Godwin's Law. However, making that argument is the only intellectually honest, in-line-with-embryonic-science way that you can advocate for abortion.

Which is why pro-life people are forced to spend a lot of time nailing Jell-O to the wall in the form of getting pro-aborts to quit dodging the topic of whether or not a fetus is a living human organism.

Why is the argument that killing infants is acceptable the only intellectually honest way someone can advocate for abortion? That seems to be assuming there is only one kind of reasoning possible for an acceptance of abortion: that a fetus is not a separate human life.

We’ve asked for your reasoning on the contrary, many times. All ears. You want to keep cracking that door open, but leave the chain on and deflect.

I've already given at least one example of possible reasoning for accepting abortion: that someone puts a different value on human life when there is no brain function (or higher brain function). That puts a limited window on abortion, but does allow for it.

I'm not sure why you think asking for clarification is deflection.

 

[Montrovant]

I imagine the argument that infants should be killed is even less common than the argument that a sperm is a separate living organism, but I completely understand not wanting to talk to anyone pushing it.

Of course it is, because it's abhorrent and marks you as the sort of evil that causes invocations of Godwin's Law. However, making that argument is the only intellectually honest, in-line-with-embryonic-science way that you can advocate for abortion.

Which is why pro-life people are forced to spend a lot of time nailing Jell-O to the wall in the form of getting pro-aborts to quit dodging the topic of whether or not a fetus is a living human organism.

Why is the argument that killing infants is acceptable the only intellectually honest way someone can advocate for abortion? That seems to be assuming there is only one kind of reasoning possible for an acceptance of abortion: that a fetus is not a separate human life.

Because when you're advocating for abortion, you're advocating killing babies. Intellectual honesty would require you to admit that, which means if you're STILL going to advocate for abortion, you are essentially saying, "Killing babies is okay." Again, this is why people advocating for abortion start side-stepping like the cast of "Riverdance" when it comes to the question of life.

If you see another option that is intellectually honest - ie. recognizes and acknowledges the facts of medical science - then by all means, point it out.

Baby seems to be more of a colloquial term than a medical one. If the intellectual dishonesty you see is based on medical science, would it not be more accurate to say that abortion is killing an embryo or a fetus? Even outside of medical terminology, baby is often defined as a newborn/infant after birth. To give a couple of examples, here's the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary definition of baby: Definition of BABY
Here's the Cambridge Dictionary definition of baby: baby Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
Some online medical dictionaries only seem to have the word baby as part of a phrase, such as baby teeth or baby blues. So if you are going to argue about medical science, I don't know that abortion equaling killing babies is accurate.

This is a good example of my point. You are saying that it is intellectually dishonest to advocate abortion without admitting to killing babies, which denies the possibility that someone can honestly consider a fetus or embryo something other than a baby. As usual, I'm not trying to argue against your view on abortion, I'm just pointing out that someone can have a different view without having to ignore any science or lie to themselves.

Whose gonna know that they’re pregnant with embryo soon enough to abort? Using terms like fetus and embyro do the same thing as you claim, using verbiage to change perception. The question is, is it human life, not what correct terminology to use medically. This is just another red herring.

As I pointed out, if intellectual honesty is acknowledging the facts of medical science, using the terms of medical science seems appropriate.