I really hate the lib mental gymnastics to force everyone, especially low risk and people w natural immunity to get the jab, acting like it's for some greater good, meanwhile complain about government controlling women, err-- sorry, birthing people's bodies.

it's the same "tolerance except for intolerance" to justify not putting up with any conservative thought.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4976753&forum_id=2#43543773)

they basically want no responsibility for anything in their lives.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4976753&forum_id=2#43542008)

Want equality of the sexes? Just convince everyone that the sexes are equal. Want transsexuals to be normal? Just convince everyone that a trans-woman is a woman. Want men and women to be equal sexually? Just do abortion on demand.

They focus exclusively on the world they want to exist at the expense of the world as it is. What is it, something like "aspiration over analytics."

In the case of abortion, abortion gives women the opportunity to act like men sexually, and removes a major barrier (perceived or real) to professional success. Women can't fuck around like men without the safety net of abortion, and women professionally cannot afford an unplanned pregnancy. Can you imagine a woman athlete training her whole life for the Olympics only to get her chance, and then "oops!" she gets pregnant and all that work is for naught.

Thus, if you convince everyone that abortion is safe and moral, there you go: women are equal to men professionally and sexually.

Of course, women are not equal to men professionally and/or sexually, they have bodies that by nature they can get pregnant. Also of course, to end a pregnancy by abortion is the killing of an individual little human being - with it's own unique DNA, no person will every be like it, with a heartbeat after 6-7 weeks, that is alive separate from the mother - from the date of conception. Libs exist in a world where they can deny these facts.

You will never get a lib to admit that a fetus is a human being with the attributes listed above, they will always argue around those facts. The reason is because the benefits of abortion, for women, are perceived to be so immense that that through the sheer force of will (and some majorly disingenuous arguments) they believe that abortion is moral.

Really though, you have to see how central abortion is to lib women, their worldview is tethered to the idea of the equality of the sexes, and that idea is almost entirely dependent on abortion.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4976753&forum_id=2#43542148)

That's not what pro-abortion people do though. Nobody serious is arguing "yea it's the intentional killing of a human being, but let's look at why we do it." Most people understand the intentional killing of a human being to be morally abhorrent. Abortion folks talk about "clump of cells," "controlling women's bodies," "viability," things that don't acknowledge the humanity of the person that is killed during an abortion.

I would love to have our political overton window to shift to where we start discussing people that need killing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4976753&forum_id=2#43542254)

Also, fetuses, especially more developed fetuses, attempt to escape the blade that cuts them to pieces. Further, there are survivors of abortion, indicating that the fetus had such a strong natural desire to live that they survive the attempt on their life.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4976753&forum_id=2#43542280)

https://i.redd.it/e88nyancuto11.jpg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4976753&forum_id=2#43542337)

Your example of being prosecuted for murder for killing a suicidal person is an interesting one, since many western jurisdictions do have legal physician-assisted suicide (blue areas on this map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Legality_of_assisted_suicide.svg ) recognizing the belief that in cases of prolonged suicidal inclination caused by severe, long-term, incurable suffering, mercy-killing a suicidal person may be justified.

I assume you will scoff that being a fetus is also temporary. I would argue that this is different because with a coma patient, you have a previously existing person who had an established preference to continue living, and no one would want to live in a world where they could be killed just because they fell into a coma. Fetuses, on the other hand, have no such established preference*; the situation with a fetus is more like "this is a potential future person." And if we're going to say that potential future people have the right to be brought into existence, that opens up all sorts of new issues: the list of "potential future people" doesn't just include fetuses that presently exist at this moment, it also includes all the additional children that people COULD choose to have. So we'd all be morally obligated to have as many children as we can possibly feed, and essentially do everything possible to maximize the world's population, and no one seems to think we're obligated to do that.

*re my statement above that "Fetuses, on the other hand, have no such established preference" - this takes me to your last point. Fetuses' brain development is low enough that "attempting to escape the blade" is just an instinctive reaction and does not represent a conscious understanding of the idea that "I'm about to be murdered and need to escape!" or anything like that. It's no different from how a pig, or whatever other animal that we're okay with killing, will squeal and run away if you attack it with a knife. Surviving abortion is therefore more likely due to medical error.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4976753&forum_id=2#43542472)

Explain to me why it would be different with a 3 month old, who also is not "conscious" in the way that you describe.

Also, the morality of assisted suicide is debatable, the mere fact that it's legal in some places doesn't make it morally acceptable.

EDIT: I'm trying to argue in your frame, but really I don't think that the morality of killing another human being is at all tied to that human's conscious desire to live. The idea you suggest is totally foreign in law as well, with laws tending to imperfectly track the morality of the people who write them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4976753&forum_id=2#43542536)

"Explain to me why it would be different with a 3 month old"

I might concede that abortion could very well be wrong at later stages, once consciousness becomes debatably present. It is, of course, probably impossible to non-arbitrarily decide where to morally draw the line between a fetus that's okay to kill, and a child that isn't. But anti-abortionmos seem to want all abortions to be illegal from the moment of conception. I think basing abortion law on the before-birth/after-birth distinction makes sense as a line to draw, because this line is non-arbitrary from the standpoint of the "woman's bodily autonomy" argument.

Your points about kicking a lot, being docile, being "happy" to born, etc. are simply a description of instinctive behavior and do not represent "emotion" or "personality" in the sense of an adult. Do you think it should be illegal to kill farm animals since they evince "personality" in those ways too?

"Also, the morality of assisted suicide is debatable, the mere fact that it's legal in some places doesn't make it morally acceptable."

I agree that the legality is irrelevant to the moral debate, but you were the one who brought it up with your comment about being "prosecuted criminally for murder."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4976753&forum_id=2#43542643)

I'm no philosopher and would struggle to come up with a fully coherent, comprehensive theory of ethics, but my understanding is that murder is wrong under pretty much all ethical theories ever proposed. If pressed to explain why I think it's wrong, the best I could do would probably be a simplistic answer along the lines of "people have an extremely strong preference not to be killed." But of course you can come up with edge cases that this doesn't seem to explain well, such as small children who don't understand death. As to the question of at what point after conception killing becomes morally wrong, I simply don't know, but I'm extremely confident that early-stage abortion wouldn't qualify as murder.

I have the same question for you: why, in your view, is it wrong?

I don't find Christian accounts of the wrongness of murder to make much sense, for several reasons. Is your view that murder is wrong because your god says so? Beyond the simple fact that I don't believe that your god exists and therefore Christian explanations of the wrongness of murder are unpersuasive to me, there are other issues to grapple with, like the Euthryphro dilemma (i.e. what if God orders you to have an abortion, or to murder/torture/rape a small child? Would doing so then be "not wrong"?) And why is murdering someone even bad to begin with if there's an afterlife? If human life is 80-90 years or so, followed by an eternal afterlife, then shortening another person's initial 80-90 years seems trivial. My point is that I don't think Christians have any sort of philosophical high ground when it comes to the wrongness of murder.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4976753&forum_id=2#43542880)

What you are trying to argue is that there is a time that abortion is immoral, and there is a time when it is moral. That tracks what most of the public thinks, most people would be OK with aborting a baby a few weeks after conception but dislike the idea of killing it when it looks and acts like a born baby. This is what you argue at a jury trial to be "common sense," and it is always persuasive.

I suggest to you that, whether you like Christianity or not, the moral framework of the Bible seems to ring true, time after time, and efforts to define morality using reason or some other framework fail. Most of the worst political movements and societies are rooted in a refusal to adhere to the moral framework of the Christian bible and instead defining morality in a way that makes more sense at the time: antebellum US South (as well as Jim Crow era South), Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, etc. etc. are despise because they defined morality in a utilitarian way to achieve goals that these people honestly believed were moral and just.

Traditional western civilization pretty much treats a life as a life, without qualification, all equal in the eyes of God, and puts a heavy premium in the protection of those who cannot protect themselves.

In my own person journey, I have seen that (although I personally may have questions about certain aspects of the ethos of western civilization), this sort of "moral wisdom of our culture" is usually correct.

At bare minimum, it prevents the sort of moral ambiguousness that you find yourself in above.

You can disagree with this, I'm not trying to be preachy, but you ask the question so I'm answering it. Killing unborn children is unnatural and is wrong as a matter of western culture/ Christian religion. The fact that sometimes killing unborn children seems moral as a matter of the prevailing common sense of the time does not change that fact.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4976753&forum_id=2#43542986)

"the moral framework of the Bible seems to ring true"

That's just your opinion. It doesn't ring true to me, or to most people (the majority of people are not Christians).

Your argument about "western culture/Christian religion" is an incoherent mess. You admit that "the prevailing common sense of the time" and "what most of the public thinks" allow for abortion, yet at the same time insist that "western culture" doesn't allow for it? So how is "western culture" to be defined - are we taking whatever medieval Europeans thought and considering those prevailing views to be the fixed state of "western cultural morality" from which anything else is a deviation, or something? Why should that be assumed to be superior to what the prevailing views are today?

Using a vague heuristic of "'western morality' generally leads to better outcomes/less genocide" doesn't give us answers to difficult questions like what constitutes personhood. The notion that it's wrong to kill a person doesn't answer the question of what counts as a person. If traditional western morality demanded veganism and said that cows are people, and innocent people must not ever be killed, and Hitler ignored the rule against killing innocent people, that wouldn't prove that we need to keep considering cows to be people or else we have no safeguard against genocide. You could just maintain that while this version of western morality was correct about not killing humans, it was mistaken about cows. Likewise, a moral system forbidding the killing of both people and fetuses would not permit the holocaust, but that doesn't tell us whether killing fetuses is immoral.

And why is it to be equated with "Christian morality" anyway? You keep saying that the moral framework of western civilization "is Christianity" without explanation - which part of the moral framework? The prohibition on killing innocent people is found in non-Western cultures. Western Enlightenment values of equality and liberty certainly don't jive with the Christian principles of "gay sex is wrong because we say so" and "believe in our religion or be tortured for eternity." Nothing about our understanding of morality can be justified with reference to Christianity: murder is considered wrong because it deprives a person of the rest of their existence. If there is an afterlife, death loses all significance. Western culture views people as having inalienable rights, whereas Christianity views rights as having been handed down by a celestial dictator who can just take away those rights at any time, such as when he decides to torture someone for eternity for not believing in the right religion. I made these points in my previous post, but you ignored them because you have no remotely reasonable counterargument.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4976753&forum_id=2#43544364)

you see this all the time. women will tweet snarky 'jokes' and memes about the joy of abortion, SNL will make light of abortion in sketches, etc.

this is the unexamined basis of 'abortion rights'. women are not fit to have control over their own bodies. they are not morally or psychologically balanced enough.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4976753&forum_id=2#43542164)

there is a very very dark and disturbing place that is the core of the female psyche and condition

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4976753&forum_id=2#43542984)

you can pontificate all day about their rationale but it all returns to this. they will seek out, glorify and do evil because there is no God in them

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4976753&forum_id=2#43542634)