Your logic should apply just as much in a fantastical scenario, if it is actually completely true. Isn't that correct, or do you disagree?
I do disagree. No law is created such that it will work in fantasy land. Even hypotheticals can defy applicability, but if done in a well thought out and limited manner, a hypothetical might help illuminate an issue. We've even seen that real life cases (such as lawsuits over surrogacy contracts) can end up being irrelevant to the topic.
Then your arguments seem to be invalid. If you are trying to invoke a principle that only applies to that specific situation (or a small number of situations), then it is not a general principle. Your reasoning doesn't have a firm basis. As a critical part holding up your argument, you want us to believe something - to use a principle - that you concede is not even true in all situations. Obviously it seems fair for me to question whether that belief or principle is even actually true. The claim that your whole argument hinges on. An ethical principle isn't really an ethical principle (or at least not a very strong one) if it doesn't still hold true under all conditions. Wouldn't you agree?
Do you know what "fantasy land" means? It's not the case that all our laws work in fantasy land. Yes, you CAN work toward coming up with real world concerns.
If the government can kill humans for various reasons, why cannot a woman kill the unwanted fetus inside her womb?
"The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion, because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between." - Mother Teresa
Amazing how much hate she gets for being pro-life. If she wasn't anti-abortion, none of you would care about her. I only posted that quote as a response to the post above it.
Your post just demonstrates that she is totally unaware of our constitution and the laws we have on murder and rights in every state of the union. But, you already know that, right? You didn't actually care.
Your post demonstrates that you are totally lacking in knowledge about the constitution, and that you did not actually understand the point she was making. She was saying it's a slippery slope, and if you're giving into moral principles of murder in some situations, there are really no underlying ethical or moral reasons why that society would not give in to murder in other situations. The only thing standing in the way, of course, is law. But the law is not the only rule by which society operates, a concept which I would imagine those who are not conservatives would have trouble understanding. Law can be eventually changed over time, and the reason people in society (including government officials) do not murder or steal has much more to do with things that are beyond only just fear of the law. Guiding ethical principles, rules and values that the society has agreed upon and embraced (when those rules are consistent and not hypocritical), morality. If it becomes acceptable and normalized in one situation, in terms of values and logical consistency, taking those same principles and applying them in other areas, there is little standing in the way. To quote Martin Luther King, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." If you can kill a baby in the womb for selfishness, and see that as just fine, how much is standing in the way of doing the same thing to someone else? The woman chooses to kill because that life is in her way, in the way of what she wants, its existence is causing inconvenience to her. (Of course she or her supporters may try to rationalize the reasons why she thinks it is okay, but those are not the real reasons it is being done)
The constitution and state laws on murder are absolutely NOT a slippery slope. Your charges of murder are absolutely absurd.
You didn't listen to anything I said. You could try addressing and taking on some of my points of argument rather than just repeating your claim that disagrees with my claim. What you're doing there isn't a real argument or debate. It would be like if I argued it was going to rain tomorrow and here are the reasons, and all you did was just respond "No, it is not going to rain."
There are no babies in the womb and abortion is not even anything close to murder. Your whole "point" rests on the faulty premise that a ZEF is an individual with rights. Yes. Which means choosing abortion is the moral decision. What are the real reasons?
First of all, that is not how most abortions happen and secondly, yes, it is. Of course, as a Conservative you are unaware of what "consent" means and quite clearly you are pretty unaware of how a visit to the doctor in general looks like.
Yes, the good ole times when women were literally seen as property. The taliban ideal the civilised world should strive for. No one thinks it is unnormal to have children.
You said it is a slippery slope of murder. I pointed out that is absolute nonsense for specific reasons.
Your only given reasons were "the law" and "the Constitution". I already addressed "the law". Seems like you didn't read my argument. The latter is a bunch of baloney, which anyone with half a brain could figure out.
Now the unborn human person is like the property. You think abortions for whimsical reasons are civilized?
I am sure that is an argument that slavery supporters tried to use to. In fact many times throughout history when extreme oppression was used, the call of "They're not really humans like you or me, do what you want to them."
Then why do pro-choicers seem to be focusing on liberalizing late-term abortion in recent years? As if the already existing laws weren't liberal enough. Or will you also try to make the ridiculous argument that "it's nothing like a baby" after the viability point 24 weeks along in the pregnancy? "No one in there, let her do as she pleases"
"Unborn human person" is a contradiction in terms and no more valid of a concept than "undead corpse". Please, use words that actually refer to reality instead of emotionalist propaganda. What exacrly would be "whimsical reasons" for abortion?
