Abortion is morally wrong

[Esquilax]

My motus ponens is as follows:
1. It is morally impermissible to kill an innocent human being

Humanity is irrelevant to the issue at hand: corpses are human, but they're not alive. People on life support can have their right to life suspended too, and that is premised on the cessation of their consciousness, not on the assumption that they're no longer human. Clearly, the deciding factor when determining whether someone's life should be ended is not their humanity, as you continue to baselessly assert, but their conscious state. Fetuses are not conscious, and so there is no life there worth sustaining yet.

In fact, the only thing fetuses really have going for them is that they're genetically human, which is why you keep scrabbling desperately to keep the conversation on that level; I think you know that, conceptually, you can't compete on the level of the actual conversation.

2. A fetus is an innocent human being
3. Ergo, it is morally impermissible to kill a fetus.

I don't accept that your premises are relevant to the moral issue at hand. Your refusal to even consider additional issues belies the weakness of your case.

Esquilax, once again, my argument has nothing to do with function whatsoever but with ontology. We do have a ethical hierarchy when it comes to other organisms if it is morally permissible to kill it or not. However, my whole argument has been based on humanity, the inconsistency, and outright arbitrariness, among what a human being actually is among pro-choice advocates.

Do you just not see that you're talking past the pro-choice advocates here? Are you that short sighted? Humanity is not the issue, for so many reasons it's not even funny.

In regards to objective morality, it is necessary proponent in this debate to accept that killing an innocent human is morally wrong. If not, than both violating a woman's bodily rights and that of her child is permissible, the conversation is a non-starter.

You're going to have to do better than starting with a presupposition, boyo. Presuppositions don't get far here. In fact, I dismiss them out of hand, on principle.

You don't seem to have thought this out very far, frankly; my position, and the one I think the others share, is that morality isn't objective, but is determined by people based on the realities of the world we share. Don't mistake what you want to be true, for the only thing that could possibly be true.

Agreed, and thats why women shouldn't infringe on the rights of their children in the worst possible way.

Except that the fetus is the one performing the initial infringement. And I see the fundamental dishonesty of your position here, because if the fetus could be removed and left to its own devices rather than terminated, you'd be against that too, so don't pretend like you actually care about the execution of rights as they normally function, here.

Additionally, as has been explained to you, the premises of your own argument don't address whether fetuses actually have a right to life at all, as many things that are human don't have that. Merely dismissing an argument doesn't mean it spontaneously disappears, but it does make it look like you've got no interest in the conversation beyond rehashing your own position over and over.

thats exactly what I have been arguing! Fetuses also if human beings have the right to bodily autonomy and it is the pro-choice advocate that is being inconsistent in there assertion of rights.

Fetuses are the ones causing the initial infringement, being that they set up shop inside another human being without consent. Removing them is entirely consistent with the rights process. Additionally, you refuse to argue your case for why fetuses should have rights, so I have no reason to accept your premises as true at all.

I stated my argument, to my knowledge no defeaters have knocked down my thesis. Therefore, it stands.

Burden of proof, motherfucker! Do you understand it!