Abortion is morally wrong

[answer-is-42]

So, to conclude, I'm not sure what saying I have different morals then you really accomplishes, if you have different morals, what are they and why do they lead you to believe my position is not a moral one? If you can't do that then maybe you should reconsider your moral positions or your processs of determining your personal morality.

The content of your morals is less important than your ability to support and justify them using argument and evidence that maps to reality, in accordance with principles of well being- and many others- that form the cornerstone of morality.

Just saying what your morals are isn't compelling, it's an assertion. In the case of abortion stuff, every pro-life argument relies on some form of logical fallacy or disregard for the factual case, in order to function. Hence, pro-life morals, from what I have experienced, do not map to reality, and thus have no validity.

First, I do partially agree with you. The ability to support and justify you moral positions is important, which is WHY I JUSTIFIED MY MORAL ARGUEMENT -- please go back and re-read my posts if you missed them -- and I have asked for reasons that my conclusions should not be considered moral or justified - I would sincerely be interested (no sarcasm, actually interested) in hearing arguements to my direct points.
Next "map to reality" is a means of ascertaining truth, not necessarily morality - murder, rape, etc "map to reality", ie actually exist, but I personally do not find them moral actions.
Finally your statement "EVERY pro-life arugment relies on some form of logical fallacy" is itself a logical fallicy, that of presupposition (not the evangelical kind). Have you heard EVERY arguement? I'm not sure if you have even heard mine, but you discount them out of hand has inherantly having a logical flaw because they lead to a conclusion you do not agree with. My arguement may indeed have a logical flaw, and again I would be interested to hear arguements directed at them, but the simple fact that it supports something you do not DOES NOT MAKE IT INHERENTLY FLAWED, rather I would argue you assertion is a flaw. It is possible the pro-life arguements you have heard may fit you descripition, but to extrapolate it to all pro-life arguements is no more true then saying this lump of coal is of little value so all lumps of carbon are of little value monitarily... the diamonds my wife keeps looking would beg to differ.

---

---

I don't think you actually read my arguement, because I specifically state that the premise is that you made a choice that led to an implicit responsibility for THAT PARTICULAR moral subject or entity. This is similar (NOT IDENTICAL OR INTERCHANGABLE - internet trolls everywhere) to adopting a child or even a dog - you made a choice that lead to that subject being dependent upon you and you, in my estimation, have a moral responsibility to adhere to that consquence until such time as you may safely abdicate it to another - eg you can't dump a child on the street because you don't want it anymore - you actually have to take it to the state and relinquish custody. No where do i state that you have a responsibility to ALL subjects or entities! ONLY those that you have made a commiment to either Explicitly or Implicitly

---

Negotiation over

Why? Because you say so? That's a laugh.

No, because the statement was how MANY subjects should we be responsibile for - I HAVE STATED THAT, and it is NOT all of the, MY arguement is wholly on the entity(ies) brought about by the direct action of the participant and nothing else. It does not apply to anyone else, and there is NOT a negotiation. So the negotiation is OVER.
So HA-HA

---

The discussion of identity and more broadly what constitutes a human or moral being that gain rights is interesting -- I don't think it is completely necessary for my responsibility based arguement against most abortions, but is interesting.
It is very difficult to place restiction on human being beyond a being that is genetically human because to do so often leads to morally dubious outcomes. For example, if the presense of conscience is necessary then a patient undergoing general anesthesia may lose their "human rights" and that doesn't seem inherintly moral. Does the ability to reason have to be a requirement? then you are not human for atleast a few years after birth, yet infanticide is by almost all measures (expect maybe the old testament) wrong.
These arguements often occur on and on for most any restriction, though if you have one that does not I would be interested to hear it.