Abortion, RandFan, and Me

[Art Vandelay]

I wanted to respond to posts in another thread, but my response involves posts spread out over eight pages, so I'm starting a new thread. Old posts by RandFan are in red, old posts by me in blue, and new posts in black. Other people (that is, people other than CFLarsen) are welcome to respond, but please only respond to posts in this thread, and only after I've posted my reply. And if Claus posts, please keep responses to him in another thread.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I agree, and I am for all intents and purposes pro-choice but I have to say in regards to your post, so?

If you honestly believe a murder is being committed why would you want anyone to have a choice? I never cared for the "choice" argument. To some degree it is a really dumb premise.

(P) Those that believe abortion is murder should be free to not-murder but they should not have any political influence to keep others from ostensibly murdering.

A better argument is that sperm isn't human life. Human eggs aren't human life. The immediate combination of the two isn't human life.

Sperm, egg and the immediate combination of the two don't feel pain. They don't think. They can't survive on their own. Do I need a "choice" to flush sperm down the drain? Does a woman need a "choice" to not fertilize her eggs?

The entire notion is just silly. Now, when a fetus becomes viable, can experience pain and is what many if not most of us consider human, should women then have a "choice" to abort? THAT is a valid premise as it relates to choice.

Until then it is just political posturing and propaganda. "Choice" is proven as an effective rhetorical device and that is why it is used. I reject the term "choice" from an intellectual stand point as it relates to the first trimester of pregnancy and the cessation of a fetus via abortion.

Bottom line: The issue isn't whether people should have a choice to decide whether abortion is murder but IF abortion can reasonably be seen as murder. Outside of a rational, scientific view the answer is NO!

 

[Art Vandelay]

It is dumb only if you accept that abortion is murder. There's nothing dumb about saying that people are free to have opinions about what is murder, but they don't have the right to impose those beliefs on others. If you're Hindu, and you consider killing cows to be murder, you should be free to not kill cows, but you have no right to force others to not kill cows.

There also another argument: even if one were to accept that an embryo is a human life, it does not follow that its death is murder. Doctors refer to pregnancy as starting when the embryo implants in the uterine lining, but Catholics consider it to start at fertilization, and consider anything that stops fertilization (such as the morning after pill) to be murder. Now, think about that. If a starving man comes up to you and asks for food, and you refuse, that may be wrong, but is it murder? Can you imagine a law saying that you have to give him food? Preventing implantation is essentially the same thing. The embryo needs nutrients to survive, and the morning after pill denies embryo those nutrients.

 

[Art Vandelay]

No, it's just dumb.

So if you believe killing other humans is murder you should be free to not kill humans but you have no right to force others to not kill humans? Irrational. If Hindu's feel a moral obligation to protect cows then they absolutely should seek to protect cows. This from an avid steak lover.

 

[RandFan]

It is dumb only if you accept that abortion is murder. There's nothing dumb about saying that people are free to have opinions about what is murder, but they don't have the right to impose those beliefs on others. If you're Hindu, and you consider killing cows to be murder, you should be free to not kill cows, but you have no right to force others to not kill cows.

Been there done that. The argument is dumb period.

If a murder is indeed being commited then choice simply doesn't enter into it. The fact is that murder is not being commited.

There also another argument: even if one were to accept that an embryo is a human life, it does not follow that its death is murder.

That IS my point. That is not simply another argument it is THE argument. It isn't murder so choice is not an issue.

 

[Art Vandelay]

How so?



You're changing the subject. The issue is not whether they shoul "seek to protect cows", but whether have the right to force others to not kill cows. Do you believe that Hindus have that right?

I found the responses to be incredibly harsh. What's worse: making a point that other people don't agree with, or acting with a complete lack of civility towards people who make points you don't agree with?

 

[Art Vandelay]

I did ask that you allow me to post all the old posts first
?

I was quite clear. If a person believes that a murder is being committed then it would be quite appropriate to try and stop that murder.

The problem is that you don't see the abortion of an inviable fetus as murder. Neither do I because there is no rational basis to see it as such.

So why even talk about choice? Why not simply argue rationally that abortion isn't murder? I'll tell you why I think people use terms like "choice", they are political not rational. Perception is greater than reality. The rational argument sadly is not the most persuasive argument. So fine, use it. But let's not pretend here, a skeptics forum, that there is any rational basis for "choice".

Would you make the same argument for slavery? Homicide? Choice? Why or why not? Why should abortion be morally ambiguous?

"Hey, it's ok for me to do what you think is murder but not ok for you because you think it is murder so just keep your opinion from affecting my "choice" to otherwise do what you consider murder." That's morally squishy and it's bulls**t.

No, I'm not changing the subject at all. If killing cows is morally reprehensible to Hindus and they believe that they should intervene then they absolutely have a right and should intercede on behalf of cows.

To answer your question (poorly framed qustion BTW) Hindus living in America, a Democracy, have the right to influence legislation. Should a majority of Americans decide to prohibit the slaughtering of cows then they have that right. Killing cows in not an inalianable right. The United States Constitution doesn't quarantee my right to kill cows.

Look, if I'm against the death penalty because I believe it to be murder then I have the right and the moral duty to intercede on behalf of those who are sentenced to death. Telling me that I have the right to believe the death penalty to be murder and seek to protect those sentenced to death but I don't have the right to impose my beliefs on others is not a rational moral position.

Choice is an irrational position whether you are for or against the death penalty, abortion, slavery, domestic violence, child abuse, killing cows or dolphins or any other similar moral position. Why do you think abortion should be unique?

The salient point isn't choice. The salient point is that abortion can't reasonably be argued to be killing a human being. Pro-lifers don't have a problem with flushing sperm and eggs down the toilet what is their problem with the combination of the two. For the record I used to be anti-abortion.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Why?

Can you give an example of where you don't see a reason for bringing up choice?

Because saying that something should be legal because it is not murder is a completely ridiculous position.

No rational basis for choice?!? Choice is the cornerstone of democracy. Are you claiming there's no rational basis for democracy?

If choice is good, then clearly we shouldn't allow slavery. Slavery, by definition, prevents choice. To say that there are choices are that are wrong, therefore there is nothing good about choice makes no sense.

Huh?

How is it morally squishy? Whether someone considers something to be murder is irrelevant to whether it's murder. Why should someone be able to prevent me from doing from anything they don't want me to do, just me declaring it to be "murder"?

You were.

Why should people get extra rights just because of what they believe?

No, they don't. Either people have a right, or they don't. Being in the majority doesn't change that.

Yes, it is.

Just because the Constitution doesn't quarantee it, that doesn't mean it isn't a right. In fact, the Constitution itself says so. The Framers never imagined that this would be an issue; it's impossible to enumerate every single right.

Anyway, you're not addressing the central issue. The issue is not whether abortion or killing cows is wrong, but whether it's possible to acknowledge someone else's position without subscribing to it. According to you "You think abortion is wrong, but you can't impose that belief on me" isn't a valid position. So what's left? It seems that, for you, someone must either agree that abortion is wrong, or deny that anyone is allowed to think it's wrong.

If you think that prohibiting the killing of cows is okay, is there anything which you wouldn't accept? Do you consider censorship to be okay? If not, would you therefore reject the position "Other people have the right to the opinion that criticizing the government is wrong, but they don't have the right to make it illegal?"

Of course it is. What's irrational about it?

What's irrational about it?

Of course it is. Without valuing choice, there is no reason to fight for abortion rights. It's called the "pro-choice" movement because it's fighting for choice. If it were fighting for everything that isn't murder, it would be called the "pro-everything-that-isn't-murder" movement. "The" salient point is not whether it's murder. It's a point, but if that were the only issue, there would be no controversy.

That is completely insufficient. The idea that all acts other than killing a human being are legal is completely foreign to all legal, ethical, and moral codes that I know of. There must be some basis beyond the mere fact that it is not the killing of a human being behind an argument for allowing abortion.

A lot of pro-choicers are anti-abortion. Planned Parenthood has prevented way more abortions than any anti-choice group.

 

[Art Vandelay]

"Why?" You really don't know why preventing the killing of an innocent person is a moral imperative?

I already have. Slavery. Homicide. Child abuse.

Why?

You are missing my point.

1.) Should murder be a matter of choice?
2.) Should child abuse be a matter of choice?
3.) Should slavery be a matter of choice.

You are getting there Art. Bear with me a bit longer. Using THIS logic how is abortion like or different from slavery? Important question. Please answer.

"Choice" is a morally ambigious position. It is ok for some people but not others.

It is difficult to understand your question the way it is framed.

1.) Either abortion is killing a viable human or it is not.
2.) If it is then it is morally wrong for you to do that.
3.) Abortion ISN'T killing a viable human.

NO I'M NOT!

Non sequitur. No one said anything about "extra rights".

What right are you talking about? The right to murder? You have no such right. Where did you get the notion that you had the right to murder? Where is it in the constitution that you have the right to murder?

That IS the problem. Abortion ISN'T murder.

Morally ambiguous.

1.) Murder (kiling innocent human beings) is wrong.
2.) Whether you subscribe to it or not has no bearing on the morality of murder.

Figure out if abortion is or is not murder. If it is not murder argue that it is not murder. Don't argue a morally ambiguous postions.

Wrong. For the state to prevent abortion it must be demonstrated that it is murder.

Not everything is black and white. There are many moral conflicts in society and the law. We have a constitution to guide us. As has been noted both the killing of cows and slavery are or have been constitutional.

1.) There is a constitutional right to free speech.
2.) There is no constitution right to kill human beings.

? That is by defintion irrational. It is not CONSISTENT.

I'm not sure how to explain to you rationality. Perhaps you should look at the definition.



A morally ambiguous postion. Why not fight for the right to have abortion?

No, it would be called "pro-right-to-abortion". Why not simply call it what it is. Abortion rights. It IS abortion rights, is it not?

That IS the only point.

Look, if we were arguing the right to kill 1 year olds would we couch it in terms of "choice"? Honestly Art, the whole "choice" thing is propaganda. It works so fine, use it. But have the honesty to admit that it is propaganda.

This does not represent my postion. The basis for allowing abortion is that people ought to be able to do with their bodies what they want. A woman ought to be able to have an abortion for the obvious reasons so long as she is not killing another human being.

 

[Art Vandelay]

You seem to have a problem of conflating completely different positions.

What I questioned was "If a person believes that a murder is being committed then it would be quite appropriate to try and stop that murder."

Now you're saying that what I'm questioning is "preventing the killing of an innocent person is a moral imperative".

Those are completely different propositions, and we will make little progress if you keep switching between different statements.

What I meant was "can you think of a case in which someone has discussed choice with respect to abortion, and there was no reason for it?" A "case" as in "a specific example".

You don't understand why a moral system which consists of nothing but "don't commit murder" is incomplete?

Then, perhaps you should post it, rather than asking a bunch of rhetorical questions.

Allowing someone to enslave someone else means giving them a choice at the cost of someone else's freedom. Allowing someone to abort gives them a choice without costing anyone else's freedom. And I think I know where you're going with this. Yes, this argument requires that abortion not be considered to not be murder. But while that is necessary, it is not sufficient.

I think you mean "neutral", not ambiguous.

But that is irrelevant. Just because there are cases where there are things more important than choice doesn't mean that choice isn't important.

Exactly. You keep linking the issue of whether abortion is permissable to whether people think the fetus is a human being. But that's irrelevant. What matters is whether it is, not whether people believe it is.

You were.

Yes, you did. Forcing people not to have abortions is an extra right.

No, the right to force people not to abort, or not kill cows, etc.

I don't see how that is a response to my point.

How is it a morally ambiguous position?

That's simply idiotic. There are plenty of things other than murder that are illegal. Moreover, that does not address my statement at all.

You are completely ignoring what I'm saying. I'm getting rather frsutrated how you keep finding ways to avoid addressing my questions.

Is "Other people have the right to the opinion that criticizing the government is wrong, but they don't have the right to make it illegal" "morally ambiguous"? Yes, or, no? I'm not asking about the constitutionality or anything else. Is it "morally ambiguous" or not?

Really? Can you tell me which dictionary has this listed under "irrational"?

You have failed to show how it is inconsistent, and furthermore being inconsistent is not the same as being irrational.

Perhaps you should, then explain how it fits.

Maybe you should also look up "ambiguous". I really don't think it means what you think it means.

They are. You are simply engaging in semantic quibbling. "...the right to have an abortion" and "...the choice to have an abortion" mean the same thing.

Are you even reading what I'm posting? How can you possibly claim that everyone in favor of abortion rights is also in favor of legalizing marijuana?

Because "pro-abortion-rights" is a mouthful.

Dude, look up the phrase "denying the antecedent".

What part of "this [whether it is murder] is an issue" do you not understand?

"Propaganda" is itself propaganda. It's simply a deragatory term people use for political positions they don't like.

Yes, it does. If whether it is murder is the only issue for whether it should be legal, then all acts other than murder should be legal. That, or all acts other than murder should be illegal.

In other words, they ought to be able to choose what to do.

So whether it is murder is not the only issue. The "obvious reasons" are also issues.

 

[Santa666]

Perhaps a summary would be more appropriate before the mass posting of what seems to be a confusing argument. Art, if you have a point, could you make it first, then explain all these posts. Also, why not use quote boxes for Randfan's words instead of colors?


Santa

 

[RandFan]

...but please only respond to posts in this thread, and only after I've posted my reply.

This is not clear at all. You are posting replies as you go. Do you mean wait until after your NEW posts?

I can't for the life of me see the purpose. The argument is quite simple.

Homicide - Choice? No
Abuse - Choice? No
Rape - Choice? No
Assault - Choice? No
Burglary - Choice? No

Morality isn't absolute. Not everyone thinks murder is wrong. Why should it be a matter of choice? Why should abuse, rape, assault or burglary be a matter of choice?

Answer, they shouldn't be a matter of choice because the notion is morally ambiguous.

There is no rational basis to suppose that abortion is murder. You can choose to believe so but such a belief is irrational.

So what's the point Art?

 

[Art Vandelay]

No. No. No. Those who are trying to stop abortions are trying to prevent the killing of an innocent person. That is their moral imperative.

Please clarify?

?

Straw man.

The questions were not rhetorical. Poor form and bad dodge not to answer them.

To those who think abortion is murder, choice gives a woman the ability to take away the freedom of the unborn child. It costs the unborn child his or her freedom. That is what you are not getting. You believe that abortion is not murder so you don't incorporate the fact that others do in your calculations.

It is the only thing that matters.

No. I mean ambiguous because it is. Morals don't work by being inconsistent. "Choice" is inconsistent because it simply says everyone should be able to choose whether or not to murder or not murder depending on their point of view. This is ambiguous.

When is "choice" more important than murder? (not a rhetorical question)

DUH! That is my point. A fetus isn't a human just because someone thinks that it is. Thank you. That is all that is important. Saying you have a right to choose whether or not to murder is dumb and morally ambiguous.

Saying I was won't make it so.

Huh? Forcing people not to murder is an extra right?

Anti-abortion-rights groups believe that abortion is murder. Right? (not a rhetorical question. This question is paramount. Please answer it?)

So, choice says that murder is ok for some and not to others. That is morally ambiguous.

But if abortion is murder as anti-abortion-rights groups say it is then forcing people not to murder is an extra right? You can't believe that.

If abortion is murder then it is wrong. Period. Full stop. Nothing else matters.

Because murder is not simply wrong for some people. Murder is wrong for everyone. Saying that murder is ok for some but not others is morally ambiguous.

If it is not murder (the position of those who are anti-abortion-rights) then why should it be illegal? You don't want to face the facts that the opposition believes that abortion is murder. The fact that "plenty of things other than murder that are illegal" is entirely irrelevant to the point of this discussion.

You are creating a straw man in order to avoid the important point of the discussion. Anti-abortion rights groups believe abortion is murder.

This from the guy who refuses to answer my questions.

No, but that is NOT a good analogy. It is a bad analogy. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

Those who seek to end the right to abortion seek to stop the killing of innocent people. They believe that abortion is murder. So, your analogy sucks. It is not analogous to the issue. It is not because those who seek to stop abortion believe that abortion is murder.

It is morally inconsistent. THAT is by definition "irrational". Saying that anyone who wants to murder can so long as they choose to believe that it is not murder. That is dumb. It is morally ambiguous. It is logically inconsistent.

Saying that it is ok for some people to murder so long as they believe that it is not murder is inconsistent. Being inconsistent with reason or logic IS irrational.

(P1) People who seek to end a woman's right to abortion believe that abortion is murder. Yes or no? (not a rhetorical question) I answered yours will you have the courtesy to answer mine?

(P2) Choice says that those who think abortion is murder should be free to choose to believe that.

(C) For those who believe abortion is murder it would be morally ambiguous to say that it is ok for those who don't believe that abortion is murder to murder.

It means exactly what I think it means. When you tell people who believe that Abortion is murder that it is all well and good for them to believe that abortion is murder so long as those who disagree can murder which you demonstrate by taking a "pro-choice to murder" stance then you are saying that there are different moral standards based solely on beliefs.

Non-rhetorical question: Should there be different moral standards for murder? (please answer the question. I answered yours.)

No. One is ambiguous. One says that the right to abortion is more important than the concerns of those who wish to end the rights of women to have an abortion. The other says that murder is in the eye of the beholder. That is morally ambiguous. There is no way to get around that fact. If abortion is murder then it is wrong for everyone. Any other position is irrational, inconsistent with reason and logic.

Huh?

Pro-abortion-rights" Not bad. Honest. Precise. Not ambiguous. But politically a dead end.

THAT is my point. That is my only point. Is abortion murder? Those who seek to end women's right to abortion believe abortion is murder. You are saying that it should be a matter of choice whether or not abortion is murder. Ok, that's fine, but policy should not vary from person to person based on personal opinion. Should a socio path be allowed to murder simply because he or she doesn't think murder is wrong? (not a rhetorical question).

I'm not using it as propaganda. I'm facing the realities. "pro-abortion-rights" is a political dead end. "Choice" is politically effective.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with my position.

1.) There must be a REASON for people to take the rights of women to have abortion away from them.

2.) That REASON is that anti-abortion-rights groups believe abortion is murder.

Playing games won't help you Art. Stop the straw men. Pro-Life, anti-choice, anti-abortion-rights groups simply believe that abortion is murder. That is the point. Is abortion murder?

If it is then stop it. Stop it now.

So long as they DON'T choose to murder. So long as they don't choose to physically harm another person. Choice is irrelevant in the case of murder.

"Obvious reasons" ARE an issue so long as murder is not the result.

Note, all links above to beliefs that abortion is murder including this one are different. You can't get around the fact that the issue for anti-abortion-rights folks is that abortion is murder.

So, is abortion murder or not? If it is then choice should not enter into the equation. One should not be able to choose whether or not one murders. If it is not then "choice" is moot.

BTW, great example from skeptics dictionary.


This is the point that I have been making all along. Those who are anti-abortion-rights should justify their position that abortion is murder.

 

[RandFan]

Perhaps a summary would be more appropriate before the mass posting of what seems to be a confusing argument. Art, if you have a point, could you make it first, then explain all these posts. Also, why not use quote boxes for Randfan's words instead of colors?


Santa

Agreed and include links to see the context of the argument.

 

[Santa666]

This is not clear at all. You are posting replies as you go. Do you mean wait until after your NEW posts?

I can't for the life of me see the purpose. The argument is quite simple.

Homicide - Choice? No
Abuse - Choice? No
Rape - Choice? No
Assault - Choice? No
Burglary - Choice? No

Morality isn't absolute. Not everyone thinks murder is wrong. Why should it be a matter of choice? Why should abuse, rape, assault or burglary be a matter of choice?

Answer, they shouldn't be a matter of choice because the notion is morally ambiguous.

There is no rational basis to suppose that abortion is murder. You can choose to believe so but such a belief is irrational.

So what's the point Art?

Just to jump in here for a moment, why is there no rational basis for the supposition that abortion is murder. Surely, science has not yet concluded the precise time life begins. I would venture then to say if I believe a fertilized egg is a human life (forget WHEN it is, just for the moment that it is), then exterminating that life is murder. How is that irrational?


Santa

 

[Art Vandelay]

If a murder is indeed being commited then choice simply doesn't enter into it.

It's rather silly to say "if your opponent is right, then your argument is stupid".

It isn't murder so choice is not an issue.

You have it backwards. It isn't murder, so choice IS an issue. Are you saying that if it WERE muder, choice WOULD be an issue?

This is not clear at all. You are posting replies as you go. Do you mean wait until after your NEW posts?

These are all old posts. I copying our portion of the thread.

I can't for the life of me see the purpose. The argument is quite simple.

And yet you can't follow it.

Homicide - Choice? No

Religion- Choice? Yes
Political Affiliation- Choice? Yes
Clothes- Choice? Yes

Not everyone thinks murder is wrong. Why should it be a matter of choice? Why should abuse, rape, assault or burglary be a matter of choice?

You're just attacking strawmen.

Answer, they shouldn't be a matter of choice because the notion is morally ambiguous.

What notion?

There is no rational basis to suppose that abortion is murder.

Of course there is.

You can choose to believe so but such a belief is irrational.

How so?

Perhaps a summary would be more appropriate before the mass posting of what seems to be a confusing argument. Art, if you have a point, could you make it first, then explain all these posts. Also, why not use quote boxes for Randfan's words instead of colors?

I figured it would be easier to distinguish our posts.

Thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52723

 

[Santa666]

I figured it would be easier to distinguish our posts.

Thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52723

Oh boy, I have some reading to do in this thread.

 

[RandFan]

Just to jump in here for a moment, why is there no rational basis for the supposition that abortion is murder. Surely, science has not yet concluded the precise time life begins. I would venture then to say if I believe a fertilized egg is a human life (forget WHEN it is, just for the moment that it is), then exterminating that life is murder. How is that irrational?


Santa

Sure, but then one could argue that eating turnips is murder. It's kind of silly but yeah. One could come to such a supposition.

Questions: By such logic doesn't it stand to reason that sperm and egg are also human life? Cancer? Blood cells? Is there something fundamentally different between sperm, egg and a fertilized egg?

BTW, science hasn't determined the precise time night begins either. I doubt that science will ever determine precisely when life begins.

What do we mean when we say human life? Does a person, in a persistent vegetative state, meet the definition?

So, long answer to your question, yes, anything is possible. Morality is not absolute. But it would require a ridiculous definition of life and to remain rational it would require the protection of human sperm and egg. You better take a test tube into the bathroom with you along with that copy of Playboy.

 

[Art Vandelay]

No. No. No. Those who are trying to stop abortions are trying to prevent the killing of an innocent person. That is their moral imperative.

NO, THEY ARE NOT. They are trying to prevent what they believe is the killing of an innocent person.

Please clarify?

Can you provide a quote, tell me who said it, where, and why, in this quote, the word "choice" should not have been used?

Straw man.

"?" indeed. How can you say that's a strawman? You've said that whether it's murder is the only issue. So, then, it follows that only murder should be illegal.

The questions were not rhetorical. Poor form and bad dodge not to answer them.

Yes, they are rhetorical. The only “poor form” here is asking stupid questions, then complaining that I haven’t answered them.

To those who think abortion is murder, choice gives a woman the ability to take away the freedom of the unborn child. It costs the unborn child his or her freedom. That is what you are not getting. You believe that abortion is not murder so you don't incorporate the fact that others do in your calculations.

I find it highly dishonest for you to say that I’m “not getting” that, when I specifically mentioned it.

No. I mean ambiguous because it is.

So can you tell me what definition of “ambiguous” you are using, and how it qualifies?

"Choice" is inconsistent because it simply says everyone should be able to choose whether or not to murder or not murder depending on their point of view.

Now you’re not only making up strawmen, you’re making them up for abstract concepts. I think you should know that “sarcasm” told me that you wear a tutu to bed, and “surrealism” says you book weasels in blue canvas.

This is ambiguous.

No, it’s not.

When is "choice" more important than murder? (not a rhetorical question)

When did I ever say it is? (is a rhetorical question).

Saying you have a right to choose whether or not to murder is dumb and morally ambiguous.

But no one’s saying that.

Huh? Forcing people not to murder is an extra right?

Why do you keep referring to abortion as murder?

So, choice says that murder is ok for some and not to others.

No, it doesn’t.

That is morally ambiguous.

I really don’t think you know what that word means. Could you post a definition so that I know you’re not just using some word you heard, without bothering to learn what it means?

But if abortion is murder as anti-abortion-rights groups say it is then forcing people not to murder is an extra right? You can't believe that.

No, which is why I didn’t say it. You said that the determining factor is not whether abortion is murder, but whether people consider it murder.

If abortion is murder then it is wrong. Period. Full stop. Nothing else matters.

EXACTLY!!!

Why don’t you get this?

IF abortion is murder, then that’s the only issue. IF it’s murder. IF IF IF. But if it’s not murder, then there are other issues. Since you agree that it’s not murder, you should agree that there are other issues.

Saying that murder is ok for some but not others is morally ambiguous.

But no one is saying that.

The fact that "plenty of things other than murder that are illegal" is entirely irrelevant to the point of this discussion.

”I don’t understand what significance this has” and “this is irrelevant” are two completely different things. You are making the assertion “If it’s not murder, then it should be legal”. That assertion is obviously absurd.

You are creating a straw man in order to avoid the important point of the discussion.

What is the strawman?

Anti-abortion rights groups believe abortion is murder.

Which is completely irrelevant to whether nonmurder should be legal.

This from the guy who refuses to answer my questions.

I don’t refuse to answer honest questions. When you ask me questions like “do you think that people should be able to choose murder”, yes, I refuse to answer the question, because that’s not a legitimate answer. And I don’t pretend that I’ve answered your questions when I’ve done nothing of the sort.

No, but that is NOT a good analogy. It is a bad analogy. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

Not only do you give no reason for why it’s a bad analogy, you use that claim as an excuse to once again dodge my question.

Those who seek to end the right to abortion seek to stop the killing of innocent people.

So? If I compare A to A, that’s not an analogy. An analogy, by definition, involves different things.

It is morally inconsistent. THAT is by definition "irrational".

Again, I ask where this definition of “irrational” is.

Saying that anyone who wants to murder can so long as they choose to believe that it is not murder. That is dumb.

Repeating the same strawman over and over again is dumb.

(P1) People who seek to end a woman's right to abortion believe that abortion is murder.

Yes or no? (not a rhetorical question) I answered yours will you have the courtesy to answer mine?

No, you didn’t. You insulted my question, refused to answer it, and now you are telling me what I will have the “courtesy” to do?

(C) For those who believe abortion is murder it would be morally ambiguous to say that it is ok for those who don't believe that abortion is murder to murder.

No one is saying that, nor is it “morally ambiguous”.

It means exactly what I think it means.

I am not reassured by your assertion. So why don’t you share with me what it that you think it means, so I can decide for myself?

When you tell people who believe that Abortion is murder that it is all well and good for them to believe that abortion is murder so long as those who disagree can murder which you demonstrate by taking a "pro-choice to murder" stance then you are saying that there are different moral standards based solely on beliefs.

First of all, there is no “pro-choice to murder” movement. Secondly, no one is saying that only that only those that believe that abortion is murder may have abortions. They are saying that everyone may have an abortion.

Non-rhetorical question: Should there be different moral standards for murder?

What do you mean?

(please answer the question. I answered yours.)

No, you didn’t.

The other says that murder is in the eye of the beholder.

That’s just bizarre. Where could you possibly get that?

Huh?

You claimed that the pro-choice movement approves of everything that isn’t murder. Marijuana isn’t murder. Therefore, you must think that all pro-choicers support marijuana legalization.

You are saying that it should be a matter of choice whether or not abortion is murder.

No, I’m not.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with my position.

It most certainly does.

1.) There must be a REASON for people to take the rights of women to have abortion away from them.

2.) That REASON is that anti-abortion-rights groups believe abortion is murder.

Is that the ONLY possible reason? If you say “yes”, then you are saying that everything other than murder should be legal.

I asked you to look up “denying the antecedent”, but apparently you refused to do so, as you are continuing to engage in that fallacy. Here’s a summary of your argument:
If it’s murder, then it should not be legal.
It’s not murder, therefore it should be legal.

This is a completely ridiculous argument.

Playing games won't help you Art. Stop the straw men.

Accusing me of “playing games” won’t help you. In fact, it will just piss me off even more.

"Obvious reasons" ARE an issue so long as murder is not the result.

And you claim that murder is not the result. Therefore “obvious reasons” are an issue.

Santa666

Oh boy, I have some reading to do in this thread.

Yeah, if you thought what I posted was horrendously long, you didn't see the original. This is a summary.

 

[RandFan]

It's rather silly to say "if your opponent is right, then your argument is stupid".

Not at all. If I believe slavery is right and my oponent believes that it is immoral then the response isn't that we should each be able to choose whether or not to have slavery. My argument should be that slavery is moral.

You have it backwards. It isn't murder, so choice IS an issue. Are you saying that if it WERE muder, choice WOULD be an issue?

Sorry no. No choice is never an issue. We don't use it for rape, assault, burglary, homicide, abuse etc., why is that? Because it is not relevant.

And yet you can't follow it.

NO YOUR INSTRUCTIONS ARE NOT CLEAR CAN YOU FOLLOW ALONG?

Religion- Choice? Yes
Political Affiliation- Choice? Yes
Clothes- Choice? Yes

Huh? Who makes the argument that Religion, Political Affiliation and Clothes are immoral?

You're just attacking strawmen.

No, you are. I'm comparing moral positions to moral positions. You are playing games and comparing concepts that have nothing to do with the discussion.

What notion?

That murder is a matter of choice.

Of course there is.

Gainsaying, what is this basis? For the record I'm talking about the 1st trimester.

If there is a basis that you are committing murder then why would you think that it is ok to murder?

How so?

There is no rational basis.