Abortion is immoral. Period.

First of all, these are the points that I am stating as fact. You may hold me to these points.

1. There is a undeniable right of a woman to make medical decisions concerning her own body.

2. Abortion ends a life. In the first several weeks the fetus becomes an independent being with its own heartbeat and nervous system and the ability to respond to stimulus. Abortion results in the death of this fetus.

3. We live in a democratic society. As a society we need laws banning practices that we judge to be morally unacceptable, and we have a democrat process with checks and balances to decide what these laws are.

I believe that these three things are facts. If you disagree with any of these first three points, it might be interesting to discuss. No one has contested any of these three points so far.

The problem is that deciding where you stand on abortion involves complex moral questions. They don't have the simple objective answers you want. People can agree on the facts and still disagree on what the appropriate policy should be

These questions are based on moral values.

1. When does life begin?
2. Under what circumstances is it morally acceptable to take a life?
3. At what point in development does a fetus become a human being?

These are difficult questions to which there are more than two answers.

I believe that there is room for moderate opinions on abortion. You don't have to be an extremist on either side. Quite the contrary...

- People are more comfortable allowing early stage abortions than late state abortions. This seems completely logical to me.

- You can believe that a fetus is alive and still believe that a woman has a right to choose. I don't see any contradiction here.

- You can believe that a fetus isn't fully human and still believe that it is morally problematic to end a pregnancy.

- You can be a feminist, and support women's rights, and health care and any other woman's cause and believe that some or all abortions should be illegal. Lot's of people do just that.

This either or philosophy is not helpful and it is not logical. People with a diverse set of backgrounds and experiences have a wide range of beliefs on the topic of abortion. This is just a fact, I don't know why people on this thread are so threatened by it.

No one is threatened by any thing. Your insistent diatribe to show what you believe is irrelevant yet you continue to post. And post. And post.

You don't want a "discussion," you want to shove your opinion down people's throats. In this setting, there has been push back. Yes, Max, we all get where you stand. Your refusal to understand let alone accept other's views is really getting tedious.

Yes, there are people who believe abortion is morally wrong. And yes, there are people who believe abortion is a moral choice.

It would be interesting conversation if you'd allow 5-6 different views to be posted before you reiterate, once again, your reasoning. But alas, monopolizing conversations seem to be your forte.

All three of these have been contested in this thread. There are plenty of people who deny the "undeniable right" of a woman to make medical decisions concerning her own body nor has the history of mankind shown this to be undeniable right. However you and I agree on this belief. I have clearly contested point two and while we agree somewhat on three, I do not believe that individual rights are subject to a vote. Allowing groups of all white legislators elected by majority white populations to make laws subject to the oversight of all white jurists didn't work for a long time.

I don't insist you have simple answer. I'm good with your complex answer and think that a lot of Americans have complex feelings on abortion. I'm challenging you to be logically consistent. Morals don't have to be logically consistent and if yours aren't that's not surprising because a lot of people shy away from challenging what they emotionally feel is correct. I do not demand that you accept a position that you find emotionally unsettling. If you say "this is how I feel, not open to discussion" I'm ok. I'm not even saying that your position is wrong, although I think it is a poor place to make laws from. From a "let's debate this" standpoint, I feel that your positions as stated in this thread are not logically consistent. That doesn't mean I think you are bad, stupid, irrational, crazy, etc., but repeating them over and over doesn't lead me to see the logic in them nor does bemoaning their complexity.

My goal in clearly stating what I believe to be facts is to focus the discussion on the facts (rather than on personal accusations). The discussion should be centered on stating the facts we agree upon, and then considering the areas where we disagree either factually or as a matter of moral judgement.

I have no problem with you (or anyone else) disagreeing with what I believe to be facts. I am simply stating my opinion on the matter clearly.

- We seem to disagree on whether a fetus is alive or not. I have stated clearly why I believe it is. I respect your right to disagree. I have also made it clear that my belief that a fetus is alive doesn't imply that abortion is morally unacceptable (there are plenty of cases where taking a life is morally permissible).

- I disagree with your assertion that "individual rights are not up for a vote". Oralloy believes that individual rights to own guns sacred, I certainly disagree with him. When people disagree (as we do) I don't see any alternative to a democratic process.

I have no problem accepting where we disagree. I just want the disagreement stated clearly and fairly.

Neptune, You are on this thread because you choose to be here. You are engaging with me because you have chosen to do so. You are free to express and defend your opinions here just as I am.

I disagree with you that your opinion of pro-life people is relevant to the discussion, and it ignores that pro-life people are a very diverse group that includes liberals, feminists, humanists and people you would probably like. Your posts seem to be focused on your judgment of people's intent. I don't believe you have made any points on the morality of abortion (other than maybe asserting that a woman has an absolute right).

Feel free, you can post whatever you want here. You can't prevent me from stating my position clearly and defending it especially since I am the lone person dissenting here. I am repeating clearly my factual positions on this thread to keep the focus on the facts rather than on any personal animosity that you or anyone else might be feeling.

We disagree, and you keep engaging me to express your disagreement. I don't think that any accusation that you are "shoving your opinion down my throat" would be appropriate.

Of course pro life advocates are a very diverse group. Again, nobody said they weren't. And so are pro choice advocates.

So what's your point?

People disagree. Ok, fine. disagree all you want. Your posts seem to suggest if someone doesn't agree with you, you'll post them to ad nauseam without actually listening to their view. I've made my assertions that under certain circumstances, it is morally and legally right to KILL another human being. Wars, capital punishment and abortion are examples of that. Even Stand Your Ground Laws state defending one's castle by taking a life IS admissible. A woman's body is her castle and she has the right to defend it against an intruder, an unwanted pregnancy.

If the verbiage offends you, so be it.

I am opposed to Stand Your Ground Laws, I feel they are morally indefensible. But I think I get your point.

If you are responding to my posts, asking me direct questions... the likelihood I am going to respond back is pretty high. In several threads now you have engaged directly with me after I expressed an opinion you didn't like. I don't think I have been the first to engage with you in any thread, nor do I remember you ever being the first to disengage.

If I really bother you that much, there is the ignore button. That will make all of my posts just disappear. Of course, hitting the ignore button won't prevent other people from reading my opinions as much as you disagree with them... but sadly there isn't anything you can do to prevent that.

But what you believe are "facts" are in fact, beliefs.

And I have no problem with your beliefs.

I think that has been accomplished.

Engineer, I want to understand your position. I don't need to argue it, I just want to make sure I understand it correctly.

If I understand it correctly, you believe that a full-term healthy baby is not alive 5 minutes before it is born. And that it is alive after it is born.

Please tell me if this understanding is correct.

It has to do with THIS topic...if you'll comment over there.

https://able2know.org/topic/468371-1#post-6678399

I have been around long enough to know a troll thread when I see one. No thanks

Why am I not surprised?

You love answering questions you say. You even said a bit ago that if you were asked a direct question you'd answer it. Guess this isn't one of those times.

Why is it indefensible for someone to protect themselves when someone attacks them?

I believe the theory is that a victim's first and foremost responsibility is to ensure the safety and security of their attacker . . . believe it or not.

Retrospective abhor shun
Right back where he started frum
Reversal rehearsals for father Chang
No warning no borning
No baby's cry or any thang
No-one's kissed, Chang's mum won't be late
She should definitely wait,
Shut right up that smoulderin' strait!
Dad don't fornicate and come!

May I introduce another dimension concerning the issue of women's rights and abortion:

Sexual relationships are complex, with intersecting social and personal desires, interests, and pressures factoring in. When avoidance of pregnancy is desired, this creates a deterrent for sexual intercourse, which reduces the desire and social pressure to engage in intercourse.

The moment easy access to legal safe abortion is introduced as an option, sexual desire and/or social pressure to engage in intercourse loses its deterrent. So even when a woman doesn't necessarily want to use various birth control methods or have abortions, she is put under pressure to accept these medical interventions in her natural bodily function by both her own innate sexual desire and the social pressures that come from men to engage in intercourse.

Could it be that regulations/restrictions against easy, at-will abortion will help liberate women from social pressure and personal sexual desire for intercourse, as well as the pressure to use other birth control methods that involve potentially health-disruptive hormones, IUDs, etc.?

In other words, if men and women accept that abortion of a healthy pregnancy is not an acceptable 'last resort' of birth control, then why undermine the body's natural functioning to take hormones, IUDs, etc.? For men, if they know that their partners will not be allowed to abort a pregnancy if it happens, they cannot pressure her to 'choose' choice. Women become free from the risk and stress of prospective abortion if men realize they can't expect them to choose abortion.

Who suffers: uncommitted sexual encounters devoid of personal responsibility and prostitution are not protected in this scenario. Men who seek out one-night-stands and/or prostitutes for sex may convince themselves they don't need to concern themselves with the eventual possibility that the woman will become pregnant.

Solution: before Roe v Wade, abortion was legal with documentation of a police report of a rape. If a woman reports a rape, and names and/or agrees to the aborted biological material being used for DNA testing, a fingerprint of the rapist can be kept on file, which would make it possible to hold the man accountable for the rape and the abortion. So in this case, the responsibility for avoiding prostitution, rape, and any sexual encounter that could result in pregnancy shifts to the man, and the added charge of abortion would create an additional deterrent to rape.

So if you think about it, the real effect of Roe v Wade wasn't to legalize abortion, because it was already legal with a police report of rape. The real effect was to give women the freedom to protect men from sexual liability in cases of rape, prostitution, etc.

Correct.

Thank you for that answer and for engaging with me civilly on this topic.

Just to be clear, I did not write this.