The group of people that I simply cant understand

...and they are so ignorant that they can't even look up things that have been settled for ages...."Oh, OH abortion's MURRRRDER... the UVVA says so, It's murder but we're too scared to call the cops! or take our oh-so-great case to the Supreme Court"

"

 

The first problem is that nobody has said that abortion refers to a zygote. We're talking about unborn babies, which is a classic strawman fallacy.
The second problem is you seem to be working from a reductionist fallacy. It's basically X from Y, therefore X is Y. A lot of things are going on with unborn babies, and I don't think anybody is damning their wife to eternal torments of hell because she got sloppy and allowed a few precious sperms to escape. (although I don't have a problem with her having to sleep on the wet spot).

You're basically saying that a twig is a rocking chair. Yes, rocking chairs are composed of wood and so are twigs, but I'm guessing you would admit that a twig is not a rocking chair. So why are you saying that a zygote is a baby?

 

If law settled that dispute, then taxation would be illegal.

 

Blatant strawman. Please address the hypocrisy of being both pro-life and pro death penalty (aka: pro retroactive abortion).

 

I am also pro-choice and pro-death penalty. For some reason there are those who get confused by this. No idea why, it’s pretty straightforward thinking.
Women deserve to have control (choice) over their bodies and those who murder another human being don’t deserve to continue to breath the same air we do.

 

Sorry, but just saying "deserve" doesn't explain anything. It's like some brat who has been bad all year sitting on Santa's lap and saying he deserves a pony.

 

Only someone who’s not a fan of having the freedom of choice would say what you said.

 

A few premises that come before the conclusion of "you're not a fan of freedom of choice" are necessary in order to turn your non-sequitur into something that might make sense to mortal men.

hint: freedom of choice refers to both situations contained in the OP. One is a life, and the other is a life. Why is the taking of one life bad but the other good?

 

You’d have to ask those who’ve had an abortion. Surely you know why taking the life of a murder is good.
Either we have the freedom of choice when it comes to our being or we don’t. I choose choice.

 

Saying "surely you know why taking the life of a murderer" assumes that there is a priori knowledge of good and bad, yet you just said that only those who have had an abortion know whether it is good or bad.

Which is it?

 

why is the right wing so cognitively dissonant about an ounce of prevention?

 

I didn’t say only those who have had an abortion know whether it is good or bad. Please stop making things up. Do it again and the conversation will be terminated. We clear?

 

I did why did you ignore it?

And then I asked you

I don't think anyone should be confined by the government, I think you have a right against being confined by government, unless you violate the law. Do you think we should change that?

 

There are couples begging to adopt new born babies.

 

Your definition defines unfertilized eggs as living humans. After all, every human was an unfertilized egg at some point.

This is where you'll now subjectively redefine your purely subjective definition to fit your very subjective predetermined conclusions.

We're subjective too, but less subjective, as we use the same subjective definition that all of humanity has used over all of human history -- human, born and alive. You very subjectively chose a very historically recent bit of pro-life pseudoscientific revisionism.

 

And if abortion was banned, that backlog would be filled in a couple years. From then on it would be overflowing government orphanages, the Romania model that worked so well.

 

Pro choice, opposed to the death penalty.

Why? I don't believe the state has the right to make the choice in either case.

 

The death penalty is not an act of vengeance, but of defending society against clearly defined dangers; a safety precaution. Violent offenders with NO moral compass not only pose an imminent threat to others after escaping custody or being released, but also to other inmates who could possibly be rehabilitated.

Please explain your philosophy to those whose loved ones have been mercilessly slaughtered by repeat offenders after they escaped or were released from prison.

Few will dispute that killing during wars is often necessary; is killing a rabid animal morally wrong? Don't you think that enabling repeat offenders makes their defenders somewhat responsible for their continuing killing sprees?

Exactly WHAT are the limits to "promote the general welfare", and is it wrong to expect criminals to forfeit basic rights, depending on the severity of the offense?

 

Yep, exactly. I too have often wondered why folks see conflict in these two positions.

 

Seems most people can only view the world as black and white.

 

lol! You could be a lot clearer in your argumentation. You said "You’d have to ask those who’ve had an abortion." Now do you notice the "have to" in that bit? That flies in the face of what you just wrote here. But still, I don't like to get anal with beginners when discussing ethics. I know that it can be a dense subject not easily unpacked.

As for the conversation being terminated, I'm actually doing you a favor by pointing out the various flaws in the way you approach the subject.

 

We don't allow people to kill people and claim defense of self or others, because they may be a threat someday. It is an act of vengeance. Any self defence claim against an aggressor requires a reasonable belief in imminent danger, The man is strapped to a gurney, in a room full of cops, in a prison, surrounded by wires and locks who would otherwise be sitting in his cell under those exact same condition. Those are the states safety precautions, not a needle or a bullet or a blade. Killing in war time is NOT permitted when a POW is sitting in a cell, surrounded by military soldiers, strapped and contained by handcuffs and chains in the confines of a military prison. The military call that act 'murder' and bring charges accordingly.

It is not 'enabling' a murderer, to refrain from killing a defenseless man tied up. , certainly no one sees it that way in any civilized country. Cells are for containing and constraining convicts who we deem threats to the community. Coffins are not designed as replacements . I tend hold government responsible for its killing, and a violent predator responsible for his killing.

Every one of those 107 nations can manage to handle this problem without killing people. No reason we can't. We have done it before.

 

It's not so much cognitive dissonance as it is being a bit more knowledgable when it comes to how tricky it can get when discussing good and bad. After all, many right wingers are religious, which means we have centuries of literature on the subject to sort through. Most on the left are atheists which means you've got pretty much nothing. There are no Kants or Martin Luthers or Aquinases in your stable. I guess you have Bill Maher, which means you're at least giving it a try.

 

Not sure what you mean, right wingers; moral forms of indignation require morals, not hypocrisy.

 

You don't know what I mean because those names I wrote might as well have been Larry, Curly, and Moe because you probably don't know who they are either.