Oppinions on abortion?

[Robert Magoo]

Got it. Not changing my opinion, but I think you knew you wouldn't be able to.

I know I wouldn't. At least that time you didn't try the religion argument.

Of course. It was irrelevant. In the other instance, it was.

[The Evil Reich]

I didn't ask why fascism was wrong. I asked why you need a non-utilitarian argument.

Because there's no clear basis for why utility matters. I'm not saying utility is worthless, only that it alone doesn't really make the case.

Utility isn't always completely clear cut, but it's a lot clearer than "God-given rights" and your arbitrarily defined "universal morality." Why do you think having a non-utilitarian argument helps your case? How does it make your argument any stronger? With a utilitarian argument, you can explain your reasoning to someone who doesn't already agree with you, and even if they don't agree, they'll at least be able to understand where your beliefs come from. With an unsupported assertion of morality, nobody has any friggin' clue where your morals came from or why we should give a crap.

[Robert Magoo]

Because there's no clear basis for why utility matters. I'm not saying utility is worthless, only that it alone doesn't really make the case.

Utility isn't always completely clear cut, but it's a lot clearer than "God-given rights" and your arbitrarily defined "universal morality." Why do you think having a non-utilitarian argument helps your case? How does it make your argument any stronger? With a utilitarian argument, you can explain your reasoning to someone who doesn't already agree with you, and even if they don't agree, they'll at least be able to understand where your beliefs come from. With an unsupported assertion of morality, nobody has any friggin' clue where your morals came from or why we should give a crap.

Ive obviously offended you. I apologize for the offense, but not the belief.

[Wiztopia]

I know I wouldn't. At least that time you didn't try the religion argument.

Of course. It was irrelevant. In the other instance, it was.

Arguing from religion in a case like this is never valid.

[Robert Magoo]

Of course. It was irrelevant. In the other instance, it was.

Arguing from religion in a case like this is never valid.

If the higher level argument is refused, I must resort to the lower level belief which explains the higher one.

[Bottle]

Except I don't. Unless you think arguing from logic and science is secular humanism. Any time religion is used in an argument such as to be against abortion or gay marriage is invalid. Especially when the bible or such other books don't even mention abortion.

I'm not forcing my beliefs on you. But if they weren't my beliefs, I wouldn't use them. Since they are, it would require congitive dissonance for me to not rely on them.

Abortion is wrong because its the taking of innocent life. You're free to say otherwise, but don't expect me to follow your values.

Long as you completely support legal access to abortion, no problem.

[The Evil Reich]

Argument from secular humanism to say that abortion is acceptable is a shitty argument so it is invalid.

Except I don't. Unless you think arguing from logic and science is secular humanism. Any time religion is used in an argument such as to be against abortion or gay marriage is invalid. Especially when the bible or such other books don't even mention abortion.

I have seen a lot of abortion threads on NSG, and I have never yet seen an argument either for or against abortion that was based entirely on logic and science with no elements of religion, philosophy, emotion, or political ideology.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

To save the planet, abortion should be mandatory for all.

As long as they're mexican abortions. Got to love the spices and flour tortilla base.

[The Evil Reich]

To save the planet, abortion should be mandatory for all.

What is the point of saving the planet if nobody is here to enjoy it?

[The Evil Reich]

Utility isn't always completely clear cut, but it's a lot clearer than "God-given rights" and your arbitrarily defined "universal morality." Why do you think having a non-utilitarian argument helps your case? How does it make your argument any stronger? With a utilitarian argument, you can explain your reasoning to someone who doesn't already agree with you, and even if they don't agree, they'll at least be able to understand where your beliefs come from. With an unsupported assertion of morality, nobody has any friggin' clue where your morals came from or why we should give a crap.

Ive obviously offended you. I apologize for the offense, but not the belief.

I didn't ask you to apologize for your beliefs. I asked you to explain, which you apparently can't or won't.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

To save the planet, abortion should be mandatory for all.

What is the point of saving the planet if nobody is here to enjoy it?

Plenty of things will be here. I bet those orangutans will fucking love it.

[Wiztopia]

Arguing from religion in a case like this is never valid.

If the higher level argument is refused, I must resort to the lower level belief which explains the higher one.

It didn't explain it at all. You said "innocent life" not "innocent life because the bible says so".

[Robert Magoo]

Ive obviously offended you. I apologize for the offense, but not the belief.

I didn't ask you to apologize for your beliefs. I asked you to explain, which you apparently can't or won't.

Actually, I did and you didn't accept it. I can't make you accept it. The onus is on you to accept or reject the argument, not on me to provide another which is inconsistent with my beliefs.

[Robert Magoo]

If the higher level argument is refused, I must resort to the lower level belief which explains the higher one.

It didn't explain it at all. You said "innocent life" not "innocent life because the bible says so".

If I didn't believe my beliefs were fact, they wouldn't be beliefs. Again, you're expecting cognitive dissonance. I can't provide that.

[Wiztopia]

It didn't explain it at all. You said "innocent life" not "innocent life because the bible says so".

If I didn't believe my beliefs were fact, they wouldn't be beliefs. Again, you're expecting cognitive dissonance. I can't provide that.

You can argue from anything else besides religion and it would have more validity.

[Robert Magoo]

If I didn't believe my beliefs were fact, they wouldn't be beliefs. Again, you're expecting cognitive dissonance. I can't provide that.

You can argue from anything else besides religion and it would have more validity.

What would you rather I argue with? Something I don't believe, just so that you can more easily counter it? I'm not changing my beliefs for you, and if you ask my reasoning, I'm not going to lie and give something different from reality.

[Wiztopia]

You can argue from anything else besides religion and it would have more validity.

What would you rather I argue with? Something I don't believe, just so that you can more easily counter it? I'm not changing my beliefs for you, and if you ask my reasoning, I'm not going to lie and give something different from reality.

Wait. You seriously think that people can't easily counter the religious argument? That is the one that is most easily countered. Also how is it reality?

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

You can argue from anything else besides religion and it would have more validity.

What would you rather I argue with? Something I don't believe, just so that you can more easily counter it? I'm not changing my beliefs for you, and if you ask my reasoning, I'm not going to lie and give something different from reality.

Your reasoning is false by definition. You cannot prove that 1. Your god exists, and 2. He is a rational basis for any legal system. Find a rational basis for your proposed legislation, or stop proposing it. It's that simple.

[Robert Magoo]

What would you rather I argue with? Something I don't believe, just so that you can more easily counter it? I'm not changing my beliefs for you, and if you ask my reasoning, I'm not going to lie and give something different from reality.

Your reasoning is false by definition. You cannot prove that 1. Your god exists, and 2. He is a rational basis for any legal system. Find a rational basis for your proposed legislation, or stop proposing it. It's that simple.

I can propose whatever I want for whatever reason I want. That's the nature of the system.

I'm not in favor of a federal ban on abortion, anyway. Merely the repeal of roe v wade, and a ban in my own state. Others are free to do what they want.

[The Evil Reich]

I didn't ask you to apologize for your beliefs. I asked you to explain, which you apparently can't or won't.

Actually, I did and you didn't accept it. I can't make you accept it. The onus is on you to accept or reject the argument, not on me to provide another which is inconsistent with my beliefs.

I asked you a question that you didn't answer. Instead of explaining why you think it helps your cause to have a non-utilitarian argument, you just said you were standing by your beliefs and were sorry for offending me -- even though I actually wasn't that offended. I guess it's one of those things where it's hard to read emotions if you can't hear someone's voice or see the look on their face. Anyway, a statement that you are standing by your beliefs is not an argument or an explanation.

[Galloism]

Your reasoning is false by definition. You cannot prove that 1. Your god exists, and 2. He is a rational basis for any legal system. Find a rational basis for your proposed legislation, or stop proposing it. It's that simple.

I can propose whatever I want for whatever reason I want. That's the nature of the system.

I'm not in favor of a federal ban on abortion, anyway. Merely the repeal of roe v wade, and a ban in my own state. Others are free to do what they want.

So...

What you really want is abortions for the rich and middle class, but fuck the poor?

How very... interesting.

[Serviss]

Pro Choice fo sho

[Robert Magoo]

I can propose whatever I want for whatever reason I want. That's the nature of the system.

I'm not in favor of a federal ban on abortion, anyway. Merely the repeal of roe v wade, and a ban in my own state. Others are free to do what they want.

So...

What you really want is abortions for the rich and middle class, but fuck the poor?

How very... interesting.

I don't know how you got that. Law is universal. According to the 14th amendment, government cannot discriminate.

[Galloism]

So...

What you really want is abortions for the rich and middle class, but fuck the poor?

How very... interesting.

I don't know how you got that. Law is universal. According to the 14th amendment, government cannot discriminate.

However, the rich and middle class can afford to hop in their SUV and drive over to the next state to get their abortion.

The poor are fucked.

[Robert Magoo]

I don't know how you got that. Law is universal. According to the 14th amendment, government cannot discriminate.

However, the rich and middle class can afford to hop in their SUV and drive over to the next state to get their abortion.

The poor are fucked.

Other states are not my concern because they are not my state. I would like them to ban it as well, but whether they do or not has legally nothing to do with me. The federal government, on the other hand, does, because my state is a member and is bound to its laws.