Abortionists, why have kids just to sacrifice them?

I have no reason to believe that they haven't followed their own morality, but is it enough that those who find murder morally wrong do not commit murder, or should we have laws explicitly stating that such acts are frowned upon by society?

Anything is possible, and unlike you I am not willing to label a group, then claim to know what 100% of them will or will not do.

 

You assert that a large majority of people favor criminalizing abortion. Statistics show that 43% of all women will have at least one abortion during her lifetime. IF you are correct about the majority favoring criminalization, SOME of those in the 43% MUST NOT be following their own morality. Murder is different from abortion, murder is not ONLY morally wrong, but it disrupts order in society. Society as a whole is not interested in criminalizing murder for the moral reason, it is the chaos in society that produces need for law.

Sure you are, you are claiming that most women will follow the law regardless of whether they agree with it or not. That's labeling a group as "followers."

 

You are confusing the coincidence of morality with the practicality that laws are based on.

There is no inconsistency in the laws. That is your own imagination only.

 

"Definition of MORAL
1a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior "

You seem VEEEERY Confused!!!! There is no coincidence, it is OBVVIOUSLY the basis for the aw.

Well your ignorance certainly changes nothing.

 

You think that legislators are capable of determining "a standard of right behavior"? After that, you think someone else is confused?

 

There is not confusion at all. We all know what morality is. What you do not seem to know or understand is that just because it coincides with what the law is does not mean that it is the sole basis for it.
Even morality has its roots in pragmatic experience. What is right and wrong amount to what works and does not for a certain group and even within groups, if they are sufficiently large, there can and exists sub groups that add their own "take" on things based on culture, tradition or religion.
For instance polygamy is quite acceptable and thus moral among Mormons and Muslims, but it is considered immoral and illegal in in the US. It follow that the law is not a strict morality driven phenomena, but rather what does and does not do "the most good for society."

Right, fats remain facts and you WILL continue to ignore them.

 

As I have said many times, I am happy to have abortion banned if it means the lifers are then forced to adopt those unwanted babies.

 

You are bltanatly lying!!!

 

How is PP "promoting promiscuity"?

 

On what morality should the laws be based? There are many moral ideologies and theories.

They are not inconsistent now when abortion before the development of the mind is legal.
If abortion was banned, they would be, unless you also ban disconecting braindead (but biologically alive) people from life support, and all organ transplantations from braindead people, which effectively biologically kill them (which leaves you with only cornea transplants being legal, which are possible even some time after biological death).

 

Offering at will abortions no questions asked.

 

EASY answer! The same morality that our EXISTING homicide laws are based on. Roe is BLATANTLY inconsistent with ALL OTHER HOMICIDE LAW.

Premeditated homicides are forbidden in all other homicide cases unless imminent threat of serious harm or death can be proven. Not so with abortion slaughter!!!

 

But it was never so even when it was illegal, nor do most people, discounting the extreme whack jobs, wish it to be treated as homicide even if it is made legal.

Roe is not law so it can not be consistent or inconsistent with any laws.

Since abortion is not and never was a homicide, you are not making any sense.

 

Oh you are cronically confused, that much is crystal clear!

I do try to ignore fat when I can, but how does fat become facts? Explain.

 

You have failed to show this, and even if you could (we all know you cannot) what difference would it make. It was wrong before , it is wrong now.

Again, you are confused. Roe absolutely is law.

Again, you are confused and speaking gibberish. Please stop!
Abortion has always been a homicide. Your argument that the law has never explicitly called it a homicide is an appeal to authority and a logical fallcy wrapped into one.

Was killing a slave a homicide back before slvery was abolished. If not, I suppose killing someone enslaved now would not be a homicide either using your silly "logic".

 

I do not have to prove something does not exist. If there were charges based on homicide fro anyone having had or performed an abortion you should be able to show that, but of course like all the other things you assert, you can not substantiate it. Further more, you claimed, wrongly I might add, that Roe added inconsistency to homicide laws and now you are negating that too. It is obvious that you simply have no clue what you are talking about.

No, it is a Supreme Court decision that overturned abortion laws. Just one more thing you know nothing about.

Then you should be able to offer some evidence, but we all now you can not.

Yet one more thing you do not understand. First of all, 'appeal to authority' is the logical fallacy and it can not be wrapped in itself. To try to learn about what you are talking.

Secondly, since you, true to form, offered no evidence that in any way supports that abortion is homicide, I took it a step further showing that there is no evidence in the law either.

Grasping at straws is not a good way to pull yourself out of the hole you are digging. Acquiring some knowledge could be used as steps though.

 

SO you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL, to back up your assertion that an abortion is something other than a homicide. Well of course you don't It IS a homicide! BTW have you been drinking again?

And Supreme Court decisions are essentially laws Poindexter!

I have , your denial is just silly.

Been there and done that definitively. No reason to post it literally 100 times.

Claiming someone else is a hole is no way to pull yourself out of the hole you are in Skippy.

 

If lawmakers and legislaters were on your side, as you claim, then abortion would be illegal in the early stages of pregnancy.

Sure there are quite a few religious wingnut legislators out there that let the rantings of the local church minister blind them to scientific, philosophical and logical realities of abortion but these folks have not won the day.

Yes .. Bush was one of those religious wingnuts who was blind to science and reason.

 

Thats not promoting promiscuity. Thats fighting against teen pregnancy.

Anyway, promiscuity in itself is not immoral, if its practiced safely. Mutualy vuluntary relationships or contracts that do not involuntary affect or harm another (third) person cannot be immoral, and voluntary sexual acts fall into this category.

 

On what morality are existing laws based on?

As has been said, they are not inconsistent now, when abortion before the development of the mind is legal.
If abortion was banned, they would be inconsistent, unless you also ban disconecting braindead (but biologically alive) people from life support, and all organ transplantations from braindead people, which effectively biologically kill them (which leaves you with only cornea transplants being legal, which are possible even some time after biological death).

The use of brain death as legal end of a person and not biological death in hospitals clearly shows its the mind we care about, not unthinking cells. As brain death marks the end of a person, the appearance of a functioning brain should mark the beginning of a person. Not appearance of undifferentiated stem cells, just like not biological death marks the end.

 

Where did you get that silly notion? They will get there eventually because that is where logic and the rule of law will lead.

 

That is hilarious. SO you think snuffing out the child in utero is preventing pregnancy? It is too late for that at that point!

In addition to being unhealthy, it is actually immoral. STDS are transmitted through society this way, and look up what the predominate cause of cervical cancer is.

 

Well as has been SHOWN, the laws re inconsistent as an entity cannot be a human being in one situation, but a meaningless blob of cells in another situation. It is illogical and unreasonable, which we cannot allow our laws to be.

There is an obvious distinction between an injured person with no hope of recovery and a human being dveloping normally who has not reached a certain stage of development. This renders your assertion here senseless.

See above. Tell me the exact point at which a developing human being devlops a mind. IS that exactly the same with every human being? Now you see the arbitrary nature of excusing abortion homicides that way.

 

In my opinion, we should just say no to hypocrisy, and legalize drugs.

 

Why is there any incidence of abortion at all, if so many people allegedly have morals?