But you do not have the choice of abandoning them if you find yourself in the middle of the woods and they are slowing you down. You can’t really wave away the part where aborting a fetus kills the fetus.
And a fetus is a human being deserving of the rights of a human being is your opinion only also. The difference between your position and his is that his position allows each person to act as she wishes on her opinion. Your position prevents people from acting on their opinions, and jails those who do and those who help.
If banning abortion had no costs, then maybe I could see it, just to be safe. But banning abortion has significant costs - the cost to the woman forced to bear a baby against her will, the costs of raising the child which “pro-lifers” want no part of, and health risks to the mother.
In areas of conflict I prefer to go with the option of greatest liberty. You obviously disagree.
No; my position is, again, consistent with both reality and the general ethical position of society. Theirs is not. Theirs is a fantasy based construct built for the purpose of justifying the mistreatment of women; nor as Damuri Ajashi points out do the “pro-lifers” even act in a manner consistent with their own supposed beliefs.
Which I’m sure is a major reason why you keep saying “in your opinion only” instead of trying to actually defend a position that you know is indefensible.
Put another way, the difference between his opinion and your opinion is that his opinion grants everyone the right to live, while your opinion results in dead babies.
Not that I agree with his opinion, but defending abortion on live-and-let-live grounds doesn’t really work.
And his opinion results in murdering human beings.
As you see it. Not as others do.
Yes, in areas of conflict I prefer to go with the option of saving human lives. You obviously disagree.
I suppose it was too much to hope for that this thread wouldn’t turn into another abortion debate.
To repeat:
To repeat: you keep confusing your opinion with “the truth”.
Hardly just my opinion; it’s pretty much our entire system of ethics that the “pro-lifers” want to throw out.
And you are just underlining how worthless their viewpoint is with your repeated refusal to even attempt to defend it.
There is nothing to “defend”. Their opinion is that a fetus is a human being. Since you (both singular and plural) cannot define the exact point at which fetus becomes a human being (and I don’t mean “legally”), both your opinion on when that happens and theirs are equally valid (or equally invalid, if you prefer).
What I don’t understand is how he can be so happy to support Mitt’s belief that it is okay to murder rape-babies.
Can you quote his statement on the “so happy” part?
If a single celled organism with human DNA is a human being then I’ve killed more people than Stalin every time I spit on the sidewalk.
Abortions do not involve “a single celled organism with human DNA”.
Yeah, but it betrays clumsy thinking.
In your opinion.
See how much fun that is.
Exactly my point.
That would be you. He recognizes that different people have different views of this truth, and should be allowed to act on those views. You think that only you have the correct view of the truth, and everyone should be forced to act on it.
Just like those convinced that their truth that the only way to heaven is through Jesus justified forced baptisms and worse. After all, that is talking eternal salvation or damnation. Better to baptize, just in case, right?