Atheists, the death penalty and abortion...

[genkaus]

I think we've reached a stand still but I just want to bring one more point.

If we reach a standstill in a debate, the one with arguments left uncountered wins. I've addressed all your points so far - differentiating between which are invalid and which are simply inapplicable - while you have ignored quite a few of mine.

It's the burden of supporters of abortion to show it's right in this case, not those against to show it's wrong. The reason why is because precaution should be taken (don't want to risk something like murder or similar to murder if you don't agree it's murder) where it's not decisive.

No, actually, the burden would be on supporters and detractors alike. The default position here would be that abortion is amoral. Taking precaution is not a moral imperative and it is a gross mis-characterization to regard it as anything remotely like murder. In fact, given the parasite-host type of relationship and all the health problems caused by it, a better case can be made for self-defense, in which case, every abortion would be the moral thing to do. But, since I don't seek to impose my values upon others and I don't assume my conclusions from the start, I didn't make that argument.

Further, it is not the morality of abortion itself that is under discussion. I' say that in some cases it is the moral choice and in others it is immoral. The question before us is if it is immoral enough to justify negating a woman's agency. Even if we stipulate that abortion is generally immoral (and I stipulate no such thing), it is your contention that it is bad enough for us to legally prevent her from doing so and that is your burden to prove, not mine to disprove.

Also, I think if you are saying it's OK to not a save a life when your the only one who can save it, and are under no obligation too, then it just shows how desperate one is to prove a legislation with little objectivity.

What does that even mean - 'to prove a legislation with little objectivity'? Do you think that I'm making that statement up just for sake of argument?

And I am not willing to force my views on anyone nor am I one to follow the crowd (simply because non-religious people support it, I then should support it type feeling) nor am I easily influenced by charisma in form of conjecture (like Obama's argument from ignorance regarding this issue) but I am allowed to express my opinions and try to convince as much as people as I want about it and the majority has the right to legislate laws they believe in.

That's where you are wrong. Majority does not have the right to legislate laws that infringe upon individual liberties. Such laws are often struck down by the courts and rightly so. The majority can make all the rules they want about the public streets, but their rights stop at my front door.

---

Besides which, in a democratic society one errs toward freedom when making laws.

That's not entirely accurate. Given a free reign, even a democracy would often move to curtail individual liberties in favor of popular morality. What keeps that in check is the thin line of constitution and courts.

---

Is there any reason why precaution should not be favored over freedom here?

Because precaution should never be favored over freedom. Especially here where the precaution has been shown to be empty.

Because I think I've shown a sound reason why it should be, you don't want society allowing and doing something similar to murder or same as murder. If it's not proven either way, then it maybe similar to murder. Therefore it's logical to not take that chance.

Your so called 'sound reason' has been refuted. Its not anything remotely like murder - anymore that eating antibiotics can be considered to be like murder. I've provided arguments for why it is like self-defense and refuted your arguments that it is like murder (were there any in such regard?), so don't hide behind the excuse that it is not proven either way. Your reasoning isn't even remotely sound.