Abortion. Right or Murder?

You are all over the map with incoherent arguments.

It appears as your first step, you want someone to agree with you that abortion is immoral. And, if you can get someone to agree, then your next argument will be, if something is immoral shouldn't it also be illegal.

You repeatedly betray your previous assertion that your argument has nothing to do with whether abortion should be legal or illegal.

That issue has already been decided. A woman has a fundamental right to determine her own procreative destiny, and that fundamental right is protected from state infringements by the supreme law of the land.

Ok, but there are also "health hazards" to eating raw cookie dough and going skateboarding without a helmet. Are we going to make those things illegal? Prostitution, murder, theft, fraud. All of these things are moral issues, no matter how they may effect health wise, they are grounded in moral truths.

So all conversations of morality are useless?

But the potential is still there. You're saying you would just get rid of it because keeping it is a hassle? You are throwing millions in the trash.

Ok, so let's make this legal then. You're saying that my morals should not be imposed on others as state law, but what if the tables were switched? What if all abortion was illegal and you had to fight to have one? Would you fight or just suffer through the unwanted pregnancy and "not impose your morals"?

The foundation of all laws is off of some moral presupposition. If the basis of law is to stop people from "injury or harm" than we should ban skateboards, guns and anything sharp.

you might want to take a closer look at your world

You're mischaracterizing my statement. I didn't say "the basis of law is to stop people from 'injury or harm'."

This is what I said: "In regulating the conduct of persons within its jurisdiction, the government's main concern is with conduct that causes or potentially causes injury or harm."

Skateboarding, like driving, as conduct in an of itself, is neither moral or immoral. But, the government may regulate that conduct as a matter of public policy. For instance, if a person drinks alcohol and drives, that person may cause injury or harm. Thus, the state legislature has a legitimate interest in that potentially harmful conduct and may enact a criminal statute prohibiting driving under the influence.

Similarly, the state legislature might conduct studies that show skateboarding is an inherently dangerous activity and that a large number of skateboarders have experienced traumatic brain injuries as the result of skateboarding accidents. Those studies might also show that the state has expended valuable state resources to care for persons with traumatic brain injuries. The state legislature might then have a legitimate interest in passing a law that requires skateboarders to wear helmets to reduce the risk of harm.

Do you see how that works?

Perhaps the state legislature may decide as a matter of public policy to regulate the eating of raw cookie dough. Anything is possible.

If a person is arrested or cited for violating the law, that person has the right to challenge the law on its face and/or as applied. Perhaps the charged person will allege the law is unconstitutional (under the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution) because it deprives him of his liberty interest to determine for himself what he wants to consume and that the state doesn't have a rational basis for prohibiting him from eating cookie dough.

See how that works?

It helps to have a basic understanding of our constitutional republic and the scope of state and federal government powers.




You seem to forget that abortion was illegal at one time. A case was brought before the Supreme Court and the matter was decided. Look up the case, Roe v. Wade, on the internet. Read it. A woman has a fundamental right to determine her own procreative destiny. The fact that other people have rights to decide certain things for themselves does not mean they are imposing their morals on you. You are still free to apply your own morals to yourself.

Again, see how that works?

If you cannot understand the things we have discussed so far, I don't see much point in continuing this discussion.

They care so much they overwhelmingly vote Republican so they can roll back education, health care and social security provision. The third World doesn't need missionaries, it needs doctors, teachers and engineers.

Because you're spending all your time bothering about foetuses instead of living children.

You have no right to control anybody else's body. Your beliefs are your own, stop trying to impose them on other people.

No one needs those missionaries. They infuriate me.

Take the money spent on them and put it to good use.

Take care of children , families and communities. Provide useful education.

What I mention is not missionaries. I mention building an irrigation system so they can have fresh water. I mention building a farm and a school so they can have food and care for themselves and become self sufficient.

I mention an adoption center where physically and emotionally challenged children can get adopted.

No the world does not need these things.
Water and food and a loving family...nah not important.

This isn't about politics it is simply about helping others.

However some people can be so closed minded if any mention of any sort of religion is associated with it they simply say bad and associate it with politics.

So then your answer, in short, is that I should sit down and let the world have its own morals while I have mine?

I understand what you're saying, but by the same logic, why not make murder a choice? Saying that I CANNOT murder someone is imposing your morals on me isn't it?

I think you have finally understood the message.

What are you currently doing? I was in Mexico a few months ago with orphaned children and in Atlanta in January working with homeless. I can't change the world, but I can fix injustice one piece at a time as God called me too.

You don't understand, and it's not the same logic.

I feel as though you may think I'm a bit dimmer than I actually am. I only ask questions to hear more from you. I just would love to hear what your response to that question is. If all people should have a right to choose their own morality, then the choice should be open in all areas should it not?

With respect to your claim to be using 'logic', I can assure you I am neither a vegetarian, nor an 'animal rights' activist. I would call myself a philosophical pragmatist who is bemused some of those who claim the moral high ground .

I'm not telling anyone else what to do or ramming my beliefs down anyone else's throat.

Do you vote for a party that wants to restrict the amount of guns openly available and increase social housing and welfare spending, thus improving the lives of the homeless and Mexicans at a stroke, or do you prefer having your poor on tap? People are so much more susceptible to mumbo jumbo when they're in dire straits.