"NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You're being evasive. Nobody asked about "embryos." Abortion includes third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Are you conceding that they are evil?

How about just that? How about you accept that late third-trimester and partial-birth abortions are child murder...can you do that much?

Give me a break.

Not an answer. Third trimester and partial birth abortions are quite common, actually. But even if there was only one, my question is simple: would you regard such an action as immoral? Yes, or no. That's all.

You bloody liar. And you have some nerve demanding 'answers' of me when you haven't answered a single one of my questions. How can a procedure done for a medical emergency be 'immoral'? 'Immoral' is interfering in others' lives and shoving your own warped kristian views down their throats. Being a gigantic hypocrite is 'immoral'.
You keep harping on about nonexistent third trimester 'abortions', so I assume that means you are pro choice for first trimester abortions.
I see you have resorted to the old 'just answer my question' tactic (like your buddy Henry), knowing full well that it has been answered umpteen times.
You know you have nothing.
Abortion is neither 'moral' nor 'immoral'. It's simply a necessity for many women. The immoral part is when women are forced to have dangerous backstreet abortions because of hypocrites like YOU.

And don't insult my intelligence by resorting to your favourite anti-choice religioturd websites. Their lies and cynical and exploitative propaganda aren't exactly difficult to spot.

[Immanuel Can]

Give me a break.

Not an answer. Third trimester and partial birth abortions are quite common, actually. But even if there was only one, my question is simple: would you regard such an action as immoral? Yes, or no. That's all.

How can a procedure done for a medical emergency be 'immoral'?

Medical emergencies comprise less than 3% if abortions. If you will stipulate to the evil of the other 97%, I'm happy to concede that when the mother's life is at risk, it's an actual "medical emergency," and there's something to be discussed there.

Are you conceding the 97%? I'm betting you won't. In fact, I will bet that you won't concede that there is ANY reason a woman can't murder her baby. I haven't even heard you claim that post-birth post-failed-abortion baby murders are wrong.

But hey, if you want to prove me wrong, go ahead...what will you accept as murder?

[uwot]

Not an answer. Third trimester and partial birth abortions are quite common, actually. But even if there was only one, my question is simple: would you regard such an action as immoral? Yes, or no. That's all.

How can a procedure done for a medical emergency be 'immoral'?

Medical emergencies comprise less than 3% if abortions. If you will stipulate to the evil of the other 97%, I'm happy to concede that when the mother's life is at risk, it's an actual "medical emergency," and there's something to be discussed there.

Are you conceding the 97%? I'm betting you won't. In fact, I will bet that you won't concede that there is ANY reason a woman can't murder her baby. I haven't even heard you claim that post-birth post-failed-abortion baby murders are wrong.

But hey, if you want to prove me wrong, go ahead...what will you accept as murder?

Mr Can, could you honestly say that every time you have had sex, assuming you ever have, it has been for the purpose of procreation? Seriously? Every shag is a responsibility?

[Peter Holmes]

Whenever someone's says 'Here's the simple truth about {insert a moral claim}', we're getting an opinion passed off as a 'truth'.

And the reason why we think our moral opinions are true, so that our moral claims are facts, is because we care about them deeply.

'A woman should have control over what happens to her own body' is a moral opinion, with which I agree. But it's not a fact - a true factual assertion.

'A fetus's right to life trumps a woman's right to control what happens to her own body' is a moral opinion, with which I disagree. But it's not a fact - a true factual assertion.

So we have a moral argument, not a dispute about facts. If there were facts, there could be no argument.

The problem comes when people mistake their moral opinions for facts.

[Immanuel Can]

So we have a moral argument, not a dispute about facts. If there were facts, there could be no argument.

Not so. There is no dispute about many facts, but the interpretation of them is still in contest.

For example, there is no dispute that a human fetus is a human child...not a dog or a mouse or a raven. There's no dispute over the fact that, given nine months been left alone, the fetus will turn into a human child, and one that is in every respect a "person," with all the rights that entails. There's no dispute that a "successful" abortion destroys such an entity, and prevents a human being from existing....and so on.

In point of fact, the matter of debate here is extremely small: it's the question, "Is it legitimate for one person to create and then kill another?" And the language indicates this: for anti-abortionists would say "murder," and pro-abortionists" would say "terminate": but neither side is in the least doubt about what's actually happening.

They're only debating whether or not it's moral to do it.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Not an answer. Third trimester and partial birth abortions are quite common, actually. But even if there was only one, my question is simple: would you regard such an action as immoral? Yes, or no. That's all.

How can a procedure done for a medical emergency be 'immoral'?

Medical emergencies comprise less than 3% if abortions. If you will stipulate to the evil of the other 97%, I'm happy to concede that when the mother's life is at risk, it's an actual "medical emergency," and there's something to be discussed there.

Are you conceding the 97%? I'm betting you won't. In fact, I will bet that you won't concede that there is ANY reason a woman can't murder her baby. I haven't even heard you claim that post-birth post-failed-abortion baby murders are wrong.

But hey, if you want to prove me wrong, go ahead...what will you accept as murder?

You are insane. Just as well you haven't got your way.
And who do you think you are kidding when you say her baby? What you really mean is god's baby. How dare women get rid of god's sacred creations!

Btw. If your 'logic' is put into practice then the later the abortion the more you support it. Bloody kristian moron.

[Immanuel Can]

You are insane. Just as well you haven't got your way.

Somehow, I knew you wouldn't answer.

However, that just means you haven't even take a moral stand against outright infanticide, let alone abortion at any stage. On the assumption that you are being ingenuous, then the obvious conclusion would have to be that you simply had no moral reservations at all.

Is that the case?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

But then again, you love war and the death penalty.

Ugg! You people are so warped and twisted you don't even know why you are anti-choice in your own minds, which is why you scour the propaganda of your loathesome self-serving puppet masters for your 'arguments'.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Oh, and perfectly fine with deadly backstreet abortions; it's the safe, legal abortions they have a problem with.
It doesn't matter what 'reason' someone comes up with for being anti-choice, it's always as sick and illogical as every other one, and kristianity is ALWAYS at the root of it. This is precisely why their 'arguments' never make any sense, and why they have to constantly resort to lying.
It's exactly the the same principle that the creationist movement operates under (you know, the ones with the creationist 'museum' where their 'research' has consisted of watching Fred Flintstone cartoons?). No doubt they use the same (highly paid) people to write for their websites.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Odd that 'less than 3%' is now a 'very low number' while less than 1% and probably 0% is considered 'high' and something that needs to be discussed at great length. The statistics become either 'high' or 'low', depending on which 'argument' they are attempting to present......

[Peter Holmes]

So we have a moral argument, not a dispute about facts. If there were facts, there could be no argument.

Not so. There is no dispute about many facts, but the interpretation of them is still in contest.

For example, there is no dispute that a human fetus is a human child...not a dog or a mouse or a raven. There's no dispute over the fact that, given nine months been left alone, the fetus will turn into a human child, and one that is in every respect a "person," with all the rights that entails. There's no dispute that a "successful" abortion destroys such an entity, and prevents a human being from existing....and so on.

In point of fact, the matter of debate here is extremely small: it's the question, "Is it legitimate for one person to create and then kill another?" And the language indicates this: for anti-abortionists would say "murder," and pro-abortionists" would say "terminate": but neither side is in the least doubt about what's actually happening.

They're only debating whether or not it's moral to do it.

Precisely my point. I don't see where you're disagreeing. The moral question 'Is it legitimate for one person to create and then kill another?' is, as you say, loaded with assumptions. But the answers - yea or nay - express moral opinions, not factual claims.

[Univalence]

Precisely my point. I don't see where you're disagreeing. The moral question 'Is it legitimate for one person to create and then kill another?' is, as you say, loaded with assumptions. But the answers - yea or nay - express moral opinions, not factual claims.

And yet you remain unable to justify HOW and WHY 'sky is blue' carries higher epistemic weight to 'murder is wrong'.

Hint: it doesn't.

[Peter Holmes]

Precisely my point. I don't see where you're disagreeing. The moral question 'Is it legitimate for one person to create and then kill another?' is, as you say, loaded with assumptions. But the answers - yea or nay - express moral opinions, not factual claims.

And yet you remain unable to justify HOW and WHY 'sky is blue' is a factual claim, but 'murder is wrong' is not...

I have shown how we justify such assertions about reality, often by simply pointing at the feature of reality. Oh, look, the sky is blue. I'm sorry you have such difficulty understanding this. I wonder how you answer when someone indoors asks you what the sky looks like. Perhaps you say, 'I have no way of assessing how the sky is, for example what colour it is, because we haven't established a code for doing things like that. And how ever I describe it, someone else can describe it differently, so there's no fact of the matter, and truth's an illusion.'

You claim that 'murder is wrong' is a fact. So you have to show why it is. Perhaps you could point at a murder scene and say, ' Oh look, murder is wrong.'

But perhaps this discussion about the morality of abortion will help you to focus and recognise your mistake. Say hello to Immanuel Can, my old sparring partner. I think he thinks the claim 'abortion is wrong' is a fact, but I may be mistaken. Maybe you're on the same page.

[Univalence]

I have shown how we justify such assertions about reality, often by simply pointing at the feature of reality. Oh, look, the sky is blue. I'm sorry you have such difficulty understanding this.

Yes. I am still waiting for you to explain HOW you know that the 'sky is blue'.

You claim that 'murder is wrong' is a fact. So you have to show why it is.

Your claim that 'sky is blue' is a fact. So you have to show why it is.

Perhaps you could point at a murder scene and say, ' Oh look, murder is wrong.'

Ironic. That's precisely what you are doing!

You are pointing at the sky and saying 'Oh look, sky is blue.'

You are USING the sky as an ostensive definition for 'blue'.
So you can also USE murder as an ostensive definition for 'wrongness'.

[Peter Holmes]

I have shown how we justify such assertions about reality, often by simply pointing at the feature of reality. Oh, look, the sky is blue. I'm sorry you have such difficulty understanding this.

Yes. I am still waiting for you to explain HOW you know that the 'sky is blue'.

You claim that 'murder is wrong' is a fact. So you have to show why it is.

Your claim that 'sky is blue' is a fact. So you have to show why it is.

Perhaps you could point at a murder scene and say, ' Oh look, murder is wrong.'

Ironic. That's precisely what you are doing!

You are pointing at the sky and saying 'Oh look, sky is blue.'

You are USING the sky as an ostensive definition for 'blue'.
So you can also USE murder as an ostensive definition for 'wrongness'.

No, you're mistaken there. Ostensive explanation of a term such as blue (this is blue) is completely different from pointing at the sky to justify a factual assertion. The context explains the function of the gesture. How does pointing at a murder justify the moral claim that murder is wrong?

There seems to be a block somewhere in your thinking, and since everything I've said, countless times, has failed to shift the block, there's nothing more I can do. Perhaps you can find someone else to talk about it with.