Abortion dialogue I've been having...

[tavarish]

@ Tav : I think Ryft addressed everything of relevance that you said.

He made the case that he would be in favor of abortion if it was in the case of rape, incest, or bodily harm to the mother.

By Marc:

Ryft,

Have I misunderstood your stand here: Do you hold abortion acceptable in situations where the mother has been raped etc?

By Ryft:

Personally? No, as those circumstances still qualify as elective, that is, abortions that are not medically necessitated (such as an ectopic pregnancy).

What he clearly says is that the mother has the moral right to decide what happens to her body, but not what happens to a separate life dependent on her body. She cannot terminate that life without bearing the moral responsibility.

...unless she is a victim of rape, incest, or medical complications. Even if he morally does not agree, he advocates banning all abortions without this qualifier as an "effective" solution:

"Consider a far more effective method: ban all abortions except for those related to rape, incest, the health of the mother or that of her unborn; according to the Guttmacher Institute, those comprise only 7% of all abortions."

He clearly states that your moral compass is, by it's secular nature, movable.

As is every other person's in history.

Yes the religious position is firm: it isn't moral to take life.

Sure it is. Within various religious positions, it is justified to take life in the context of:

1. Times of war
2. Self defense
3. Divine command
4. Blood sacrifice & martyrdom

You can justify absolutely anything if you wanted it bad enough.

You display what Arcanus accuses you of: a confused conception of the POV. One that mirrors your own shifting basis.

Actually I think I've been pretty clear. Taking away choice doesn't solve problems, and a certain morality is only necessarily good to the people that agree with it. Within a salad bowl society like ours, we don't sanction an absolute morality (whatever that is) within our laws, we promote freedom and try to act decently to others for the most part - based off a guiding tenet called the golden rule, which in itself, can be broken from time to time.

His viable solution is to make law what is morally observed. It works for every other aspect of human society.

His solution isn't realistic in the least. What is moral to one person isn't necessarily so for the entirety of a nation. With this, we have amendments to laws, because as a society, we don't deal with absolutes, we deal with a steady progression to adapt the best we can to work with one another for a more harmonious future.

Taking options away from someone who frankly don't give a crap about your moral system isn't solving any problems, it's creating them.