Abortion is morally wrong

[Brian37]

Losty, I argued that individuals have the right to bodily autonomy up until the point they commit a moral impermissible act.

Excuse me, who died and left you boss? In civil societies WE, not you, WE, get to decide, that is what laws are for and elections are for. YOU do not get to dictate to the rest of us.

So unless you are willing to pick up a gun and murder me, because I am not going to use anything but the voting booth to make my voice heard, who would be moral at that point? The violent asshole who simply wants to force people to do things his way, or the non violent person who says civil laws are made through voting?

[Arthur123]

Brian, I am arguing moral truths here. My argument is in The form of modus ponens so unless you have an argument not liking the conclusion is irrelevant

[Brian37]

I don't give one fuck if you think abortion is immoral, WE do not live in a dictatorship so YOU do not get to decide for everyone nor are you a dictator.

GROW THE FUCK UP, no one sets out to have an abortion just to throw a party. IT SUCKS when a girl or women gets to that point, but is between them and a doctor and YOU have no fucking say asshole!

So the only way you can stop it is to become an immoral bully yourself.

[Arthur123]

I fight with words and reasoning. That is all

[fr0d0]

If Arthur says he thinks abortion is morally wrong, he isn't telling other people what to do. He's simply saying that he thinks it's morally wrong.

The gay abortion is immoral. But if someone would make that choice then they shouldn't be a dad anyway.

Here Godslayer is saying he thinks abortion on the basis of discrimination against gays is morally wrong and that those people shouldn't be parents.

Yet no one has picked up on this.

Makes me wonder about the motive of posters in this thread.

[Brian37]

Oh and by the way dumbass, throwing dead languages at people is not an argument.

---

If Arthur says he thinks abortion is morally wrong, he isn't telling other people what to do. He's simply saying that he thinks it's morally wrong.

So? If he think's it is wrong then why not try to end something you think is wrong?

But here is the problem, two can play that game. I wish religion didn't exist. I also think the bible is immoral. So by his logic, if we all got to get rid of things we don't like every single one of us can make an excuse to become genocidal maniacs.

Otherwise the only thing he can do is make verbal argument. His problem is he thinks we are new to this issue. I am aware of what his position is. Still he isn't going to change it and I certainly WILL defend via vote a women's right to choose.

He will have his ass handed to him, even in debate alone, and judging the size of this thread, he most likely is unaware he is having his ass handed to him already.

[Losty]

Losty, I argued that individuals have the right to bodily autonomy up until the point they commit a moral impermissible act.

It is not morally impermissible to defend my own body.

[Arthur123]

It is when you kill someone who you are responsible for putting there in the first place.

[Ravenshire]

Brian my argument has nothing to do with religion and is based on the right or wrongness of an action. Me being a male and not having a vagina commits the genetic fallacy. You also commit the fallacy of appealing to popular belief

What? Being male isn't the problem. It's not being the owner of the uterus in question. No human being, no matter how big or small, has any inherent right to my uterus except me. No one else.

And, no one should tell you how to use it!

[JuliaL]

No, I believe being genetically human is all that matters. When you say kill inherent in that sentence is that something is already alive because it is philosophically unintelligible to kill something that is already dead.

Lots of cells are live, genetically human and capable of becoming adults with appropriate treatment. Why are you singling out the fertilized egg for your border between morally protected and not?