Abortion: 10 years as an atheist and I still don't get it

[Nihilist Virus]

That's not exactly the pro choice position, but the pro choice position is a comment on legality, anyway.  You asked for moral justifications.

I've already made it clear that I accept that it should be legal.  Pro-choice advocates think abortion is morally acceptable. You aren't following the conversation.

The same thing I've been saying since I first answered the question you asked.  That there are -many- moral justifications for abortions, from at least three major categories of moral consideration. 

And I've asked you to fuck off with that as it is not relevant. But you don't get it. Wall, meet forehead.

-and when I remind you that I've already answered this one, will you kick the goalposts a few feet back, or?  

I've given you three categories of moral justification, these three categories describe the breadth of any other moral consideration.  Moral goods, final moral goods, and avoidance.

Not relevant.

Try to think of any other thing you consider morally justified, and why.  You'll find that if it can be justified, -even if your justification were in factual error, as it was with the vegan example- it falls into at least one of those three categories.  Since examples and elaboration don't seem to have any use for you, your question could be answered more simply without reference to any of them.

Abortion can be justified in any and all of the ways that any other thing is.

Not relevant.

-To answer your question.  I acknowledge that the abortion of a healthy fetus can be morally justified, yes, ofc.

Not fucking relevant for fuck sake.

This thread.

Is not about.

Whether.

Abortion.

CAN BE.

Moral.

It's about whether.

Abortion.

IS ALWAYS.

Moral.

No matter the circumstances.

The health of the fetus isn't the only morally relevant fact (depending on the schema, it may not be a morally relevant fact at all).  

That doesn't mean that I would do it or that I would personally accept that justification if it were me making the choice.

In my opinion, your confusion on this issue is down to misunderstandings of key terms you've attempted to employ in support of a position called moral absolutism.

I'm not the one who is confused.

You posit that killing life is absolutely wrong.  Most of us do not.

And I gave reasons for that. Reasons which I know you saw since you replied to the post containing them. But reasons which you nevertheless failed to address.

In an absolutists value schema you'd be asking for the impossible, but in any other value schema you'll find any number of rational and lucid answers to that question that, again imo, better reflect reality.

We don't ask what is practical first, and then what is moral second.  That is backward, and it has led to your appeal to consequences logical fallacy. Which you don't even understand. But never mind that for now.  It's clear you don't understand the main point, so I'm out. You have nothing to offer to me.