Abortion is morally wrong

[Losty]

You are intentionally misrepresenting what he said. You can't play word games with me, I have a 5 year old daughter.

You're in for a tough ride (my daughter is 12 now and has her mum wrapped around her little finger)

How am I misrepresenting what he said? Can you point out the errors in my comparison?

Btw nothing against you at all Godslayer. I'm merely interested in the disparity.

Lol yea I am not ready for 12 yet, let me survive 5 first :p

When someone says a certain type of person shouldn't be a parent it's usually used like an insult saying they're unfit to be parents. It's not meaning that they shouldn't be allowed or should be prevented from being parents.

[Little lunch]

Losty, how was Frodo deliberately lying?
Godslayer, what did you mean?
Why evade the questions?

[Losty]

Losty, how was Frodo deliberately lying?
Godslayer, what did you mean?
Why evade the questions?

You see how you said lying, when I didn't say lying? That is called misrepresenting. Frodo said shouldn't be allowed when Godslayer simply said shouldn't. That is also misrepresenting. You see?

[fr0d0]

He proposed that it ought to be illegal. That's why I'm opposing him.

I read the whole thread and found that Arthur had said that twice.

But for that simple blunder he could have escaped this wrath.

I see that's why heckles were raised. If the taking of life was agreed to be morally wrong from conception, then shouldn't legality have to follow.

For me, that's where the problem lies. It's the ethical correctness of the right to abort. I'm sure that given all of the possible factors, that the mothers own ethical considerations are a lot of the time equal or greater than those of the forming human. That seems to be something that Arthur completely fails to address.

---

When someone says a certain type of person shouldn't be a parent it's usually used like an insult saying they're unfit to be parents. It's not meaning that they shouldn't be allowed or should be prevented from being parents.

Ok I get you

[Jackalope]

He proposed that it ought to be illegal. That's why I'm opposing him.

Can you link to where?

Right here.

And since abortion is still the intententional killing of an innocent human being it is not only immoral, but should be illegal.

[Jackalope]

He proposed that it ought to be illegal. That's why I'm opposing him.

I read the whole thread and found that Arthur had said that twice.

But for that simple blunder he could have escaped this wrath.

Wrath? Not from me. I think I've been pretty civil here - and I don't usually do abortion threads because of the invective that they tend to generate. I've simply attempted to make the point that his position isn't nearly as coherent as he appears to think it is.

When someone says a certain type of person shouldn't be a parent it's usually used like an insult saying they're unfit to be parents. It's not meaning that they shouldn't be allowed or should be prevented from being parents.

What Losty said. I see a lot of parents that probably are unfit to be so. That doesn't mean that I'm of a mind to impose the force of law to prevent it (particularly via prior restraint). Abuse your kids? Yeah, the state should intervene. Simple bad parenting or values I find objectionable? No, there's a line somewhere, and this doesn't cross it.

[Arthur123]

Esquilax, genetics is all that matters. When you say you shouldn't kill a human being it is *implied* philosophically that the human is alive. This is because killing something that's not alive is incoherent.

---

Losty bodily autonomy is important up until the point it is used to commit a morally impermissible act

---

Civic law should follow moral law especially in cases that have one-to-one correspondence. If I am right (which I think I am) than abortion is the killing of an innocent human being and just like other instances of this, it should be illegal. Thanks frodo for trying to help but the atheists are right on this one haha

[GrandizerII]

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

And I argue it's morally impermissible to deprive the woman of the right to make certain decisions concerning her own body. Maybe she doesn't want to keep an entity in her body for such a long period of time. Maybe she doesn't want to suffer and be at risk of dying because of it.

How unempathetic can you get by refusing to allow women these rights?

[Arthur123]

These same thoughts of bodily disruption can be applied to the fetus, Irrational. Except the quality that is also added in this case is certain death

[Losty]

Losty bodily autonomy is important up until the point it is used to commit a morally impermissible act.

Abortion is not morally impermissible. *insert Chas' coffee here*