Why do you believe in God ?

Stop ducking the stated issue. Was the complete military invasion of Iraq, subject to congressional votes and UN blessings,
arbitrary or not? You already know it wasn't which I guess is why you keep dancing around the issue.

 

How does my personal belief that there should be no law against abortion (in the early term) threaten physical violence (via law) on the people that think the slaughter of human beings in the womb is a moral stain on the nation ?

This is patent nonsense.

 

What a bunch of nonsensical fallacious gibberish People against laws banning abortion are not forcing their views on others through physical violence (Law). They are not asking for a law forcing people to have abortions.

Get a grip.

 

If a nation decides not to oppose Nazism in war when the battle is raging on throughout the world it is letting others give up their soldiers, their resources, their lands are being invaded, their people are being enslaved, etc. while Switzerland sits down and does nothing of consequence while the Nazis wreaked death and suffering on others.

Do you really not see this? Or do you just need to claim the opposite of whatever I contend?

 

It is patent nonsense. There is no "physical violence" being threatened on pro life advocates. You have claimed this. Not me.

 

Take out the word abortion and insert the word slavery instead and tell me if your nonsensical fallacious gibberish makes any sense at all.
It does not. What a bizarre disconnect you seem to have.

 

Not exactly and your dancing away from your own post demonstrates you know what you've done.

And that you try to take your post and make me 95% responsible for it says volumes about your credibility and honesty.
I'm not surprised.

 

Yes you did. I was talking about being against abortion "LAW" and you said this was forcing my views on others. Being against abortion law does not force anything on anyone.

 

The disconnect is that you don't seem to know what the word "rights" means and how it applies to born humans.

 

What does slavery have to do with it ... it is you that has the logical disconnect. In the case of slavery .. someone is forcing their will on another human. This is not the case with abortion in the early term.

 

Either pro life people or pro choice fans are going to be well served by the law or not. The advantage to one group is disadvantage to the other. Do you really need someone to point this out to you?

 

When you add in the qualifier "early term" I agree with you and said so long ago. Remember I professed not to be an absolutist on the issue.
So where is the argument then?

 

This is a false dichotomy. How is someone who does not like abortion "disadvantaged" by someone having an abortion ?

Once again (for like the fourth time) ... there is a difference between 1) having a belief and 2) forcing that belief on others through physical violence (Law).

The pro life person who advocates for abortion law wants to force their personal or religious belief on others through physical violence (Law).

The pro choice person does no such thing. Allowing abortion does not force anything on a pro life person - never mind through physical violence.

 

There is none. I claim that a human exists in the later term. I therefor have moral issues with abortion past this time. I wish that the majority of the pro life movement had your perspective. We could then pass reasonable laws which does not infringe with a woman's reproductive right and save a few living humans at the same time. Unfortunately the majority of the pro life movement wants to ban all abortion from conception onward.

I have little sympathy for a woman who, late in term, decides she wants an abortion. If she did not want a child being created ... then she should have stopped the process prior to a child being created and achieving significant brain function.

 

And I will repeat (for like the fourth time) you can say the same exact thing to excuse and justify slavery (me owning slaves doesn't require you to get slaves too). Let's just say you have a gaping moral blind spot and leave it at that.

 

At last there is agreement here. That is good to know.

 

There are laws against late term abortions.

 

What are you talking about... Me shooting someone does not mean you got shot. What does this have to do with anything we are discussion? This is a complete false dichotomy .. one has nothing to do with the other.

This nation was founded on respect for individual rights and freedoms. Those rights end where the nose of another begins.
Slavery was found to be an anathema to these principles. Obviously slavery is an infringement on the rights of another human. The justification for maintaining slavery at the time was that since they were not "citizens" the rights did not apply to them. Women were also lower class in that they did not have the right to vote ... not full citizens.

The legitimate authority of Gov't is protection from harm .. "murder, rape, theft" and so on. Individual liberty is put "above" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

Gov't is not supposed to be making any law that messes with individual liberty (which includes the liberty of a woman to control her own body and reproductive capacity).

You are confusing the rights of a human with something that is not a human.

Not making a law against murder of other humans (or slavery) directly affects all members of society by creating the potential that they could be murdered or enslaved and there would be no consequences.

Not making a law against abortion does nothing to the other members of society.

You are making a false dichotomy - trying to claim two things are comparable when they are not.

 

Yes there are .. and I think there are legitimate arguments that can be made that justify such law.

There are no rational (non fallacious) legal arguments that can be made for banning abortion in the early term - or none that I have ever heard. (and I have heard many ... and took a course in Philosophy from a Jewish professer who had his Ph.D from Oxford .. where we studied the abortion issue for a month - looking at the best arguments on both sides)

 

If one considers that thing inside the womb a zygote (as it would be at a certain stage) then I agree with you.

But if that zygote grows and progresses in a natural fashion as human being would grow, until it has all the facilities and functioning abilities of a human being then I don't agree with you at all.

The government has every right and responsibility to protect those that cannot speak or act for themselves whether they be slaves or those as yet unborn. I'm not sure we disagree but I wish you'd stop referring to the unborn as zygotes when I've already stated often enough
that I'm no absolutist on that matter (though many others are).

 

I guess I just don't see a need for such a law.....There aren't many women who "enjoy" 7-8-9 months of being pregnant just for the "fun" of an abortion.




If a woman goes into a hospital and demands an abortion at 8-9 months, an extreme rarity, I think she'd get a psyche evaluation before they'd give her an abortion .

Mentally healthy women just don't do that.


And since most abortions take place well before that I don't see the need for a law.

The law was just a sop (compromise) to the anti-abortion group.

 

Why do you insist the unborn have more rights than anyone else?

 

Yep I don’t really personify zygotes. Now if only you cared about children the way you do about zygotes, we would be better off

 

Fully functioning human beings in the womb? Huh?

 

That’s a red herring....women can’t have abortions on a healthy viable fetus while she is healthy. It doesn’t happen! Over 90% Of abortions are done in the first trimester when the fetus weighs about 1/10 of 1 ounce and is less than an inch and has no neural connections