What moral justification besides bodily autonomy do you use to support the position t

[Thumpalumpacus]

Let me get this straight -- you're not trolling, but you created three threads your first day here about abortion?

I might have fallen off the cabbage truck, kid, but it wasn't yesterday. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck ...

[Chad32]

For the longest time, one of a woman's primary jobs, as far as the ruling men were concerned, was to pop out babies. That's why virginity is so prized, and having her hymen broken is considered defiling her forever. Having respect for a woman's body, up to lettng her make her own decisions when pregnant is a cornerstone of equality. It's a little hypocritical when a christian republican want to keep women from using birth control, or having abortions, but also wants to cut welfare systems that may be meant to help women actually raise a child that she's been forced to give birth to.

There's seven billion people on the planet. I think our species will be fine if women want to have abortions, or not have heterosexual sex, or whatever.

[DogmaticDownSouth]

Let me get this straight -- you're not trolling, but you created three threads your first day here about abortion?

I might have fallen off the cabbage truck, kid, but it wasn't yesterday.  If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck ...

I created 3 thread in my first WEEK here.

I created teh first thread at the behest of ignoramus. The first thread was overtaken with arguments that had nothing to do with my original post, so i then created 2 posts to hvae the arguments that were filling up the other threads so that we could argue that point there and these points here....

you know JUST LIKE I STATED AT THE ONSET OF EACH OF THESE LAST TWO THREADS

So who is being a dick now?

[Brakeman]

Well, A woman has hundreds of thousands of eggs that "Could" be fertilized and could create a baby. She, generally speaking, has about 40 years or so of natural monthly cycles where one or more of these eggs becomes open to the possibility of conception. Yet in reality, she will choose to greatly limit the possible progeny to just one or two children as the norm. Thus it is morally imperative that she be able to choose the circumstance and the timing of the few children she does choose to have because for every child she chooses to have, at least 11 more eggs lose their chance to become babies just as surely as if you chopped them up in a blender.

[Foxaèr]

I'm confused, is there any difference between this guy's three threads?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Let me get this straight -- you're not trolling, but you created three threads your first day here about abortion?

I might have fallen off the cabbage truck, kid, but it wasn't yesterday.  If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck ...

I created 3 thread in my first WEEK here.

I created teh first thread at the behest of ignoramus. The first thread was overtaken with arguments that had nothing to do with my original post, so i then created 2 posts to hvae the arguments that were filling up the other threads so that we could argue that point there and these points here....

you know JUST LIKE I STATED AT THE ONSET OF EACH OF THESE LAST TWO THREADS

So who is being a dick now?

Never said I wasn't being a dick. I said you were being a troll.

I'm still waiting for contrary evidence.

Keep that shit in one thread, don't ask others to do legwork in order to find your clear opinions, and perhaps -- just perhaps, show that you're here actually to have a human relationship rather than shitpost and stir the pot.

[Losty]

Late term abortions are a fucking non issue. There are so few of them already and if you discount those that are medically necessary to save the woman and those that are a result of poor access to affordable abortion, what are you left with? A person who wants to tell the story of those bad bad baby killing pro-choicers, because they don't have any real argument against allowing a woman full control over her own body.

[Thumpalumpacus]

[edited for incorrect information provided]

[Foxaèr]

I prefer to have the argument I acttually made be critized in threads that I start asking for criticisim of my arguments (crazy right?)

The only question I found in this OP.

[DogmaticDownSouth]

I created 3 thread in my first WEEK here.

I created teh first thread at the behest of ignoramus. The first thread was overtaken with arguments that had nothing to do with my original post, so i then created 2 posts to hvae the arguments that were filling up the other threads so that we could argue that point there and these points here....

you know JUST LIKE I STATED AT THE ONSET OF EACH OF THESE LAST TWO THREADS

So who is being a dick now?

Never said I wasn't being a dick. I said you were being a troll.

I'm still waiting for contrary evidence.

Keep that shit in one thread, don't ask others to do legwork in order to find your clear opinions, and perhaps -- just perhaps, show that you're here actually to have a human relationship rather than shitpost and stir the pot.

I don;t know how you define a troll.
I have been intelelcutally honest and upfront on each of my questions. I started with one thread, as i stated the majority of responses did not address the question I askebd, but 2 other questions unrelated to that questions so I creasted 2 threads to argue those points (that can be argued independently of the my primary thread). You don';t have to read any of the other threads to discuss that which is in each of the others. I have occassionaly pointed people to one thread or another whne they ask a quesiton directly addressed in that, but ath is usually when going off tpoic. I usually try to asmwer the question within that thread as well.

I assume shit post means be rude? Not sure, don't knwo the term. I am here to hear other's opinoins in a venue that I assuemd there would skeptical thinkers capable of free thought and challenging their intellect. I may be wrong.
I'm not here to make friends for life, if that is your intent. This is a forum to me, I stated on the onset this is more for mre then anyone else. I have an argument that I use to myself. I would like to know if that argument is sound (that was the original post). That's why I came here. I made it very clear both in my introduction (that's what tha fourm is for I suppose?) and my first post on my first thread. If you can't be bothered to read those basic things then I can't help you, but I have been intellectually honest and upfront both about what I am asking and why.
I have enough friends and family in real life, so this forum is an interesting diversion to interact with people who I thotugh could be intersting and challenge my beliefs. I have so far been sorely dissapointed.
People keep asking why so many threads, my questions is why do  you care. If you want to know about the conversation, then read them and join, if you don't then don't. This is truly a situatiun with only 1 agent involved, you. Your actions have no impact on anyone else and your refusal to comment on my posts is your right.
I do think that commenting to be disparaging is rude. I have done it twice  in retaliation to having my integretty questioned. I have been honest and can rest assured in my beliefs that I have remained intellectually honest.

Again how do you define troll?

---

Late term abortions are a fucking non issue. There are so few of them already and if you discount those that are medically necessary to save the woman and those that are a result of poor access to affordable abortion, what are you left with? A person who wants to tell the story of those bad bad baby killing pro-choicers, because they don't have any real argument against allowing a woman full control over her own body.

Murder accounts for 0.7% deaths in america. Not many huh? so then why talk about the morality or legality of murder?
By the way, a fetus is potentially viable long before 26 weeks and a recent data points to atleast 3% occur after 18 weeks (a time of potential viability).

Source:  http://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abo...tatistics/

But again, my question is not about how many, As far as i know no one has ever forced a person to swallow an iphone 6 while chugging lighter fluid and then swallow a match, but the question of it's morality wouldn't change if it never happened or happened 100 x each monday.
The question of bodily autonomy necessarily leads to the questions I have asked. Regardless of how often they occur, they can still potentially occur. Does your logical and moral framework accept the conclusion that you are arguing?
Simple question. If it does you are consistent, if it doesn't you are not and you are making up either ad-hoc or post-hoc rationalizations that are not logically consistent.
Why is introspection wrong?