Abortion

It doesn't matter where it leads. It is the truth that morality is always subjective and depends upon an opinion.

My opinion on rape does not make my opinion objective. Also, many rapists think rape is morally justified.

Is that objectively true?

So, yes or no?

Seems weird that so many are “pro-life” without first being pro quality of life

I don't believe the quality of life determines value, when it comes to human beings. Otherwise, you could justifiably defend genocide. You become Hitler

Jesus Christ,   TDS  Trump lives in your head rent free 24/7/365.  I cant imagine being so obsessed with anyone especially someone who has no or will never have an affect on your life.

You are on your fucking own, you still aint figured that out yet. Aint no one coming to save you or this country. 

Probably. So far no one has shown me morality which exists independent of mind. God doesnt change that.

I believe rape is always wrong. But thats irrelevant, since it doesnt make my opinion objective at all.

Unborn people arent equal to born people.

Most people are completely okay with aborting fetuses that are defective.

Unborn, by being unborn, never sentient and never feeling pain, are less valuable than born people by comparison.

By development, unborn people are less worthy than born people, many closer to being sperm than being born.

if morality is objective, meaning that some things are ultimately objectively wrong or evil, then there has to be a mind that is above all our minds to determine that. 

So, you're admitting that objectively, rape could be an ok, or even good thing? 

Does quality of life determine value?

But even if you were right, does "feeling pain" determine value?

In that case we should just stab people with CIP, right?

I'm closer to being sperm than being old

I don't think that the distance you are from your origins determines your value.

No, morality is not independent of mind even if some minds are greater than others. Its still mind.

Objectively, no action is good or bad. Its the mind which gives value to actions. Otherwise, no value exists.

It plays a part in determining value. People prefer shorter lives in happiness, freedom than longer lives in pain.

It adds negative value. Its the anti-goal, something which makes life worse and what people want to remove.

Many countries have legal euthanasia for people who suffer great pain. Pain is one of the things that matter.

Being old isnt the goal. The goal is happy and free person. Fetus is much closer to sperm than you.

The distance from origin to goal indeed adds value. If goal is free, happy, productive individual - fetus isnt closer.

"Many in the medical community believe there’s clear evidence that a fetus – a developing baby in the womb – can’t feel physical pain until after the 24th week"

Most abortions happen almost as soon as unwanted pregnancy is detected, before 24th week, before fetus feels pain.

However, as explained before, your position would force rape victims to give birth, thus further violating their body.

If it is objective for us, then a greater mind must have created that standard

So, if a man came up to you and said, I believe rape is beautiful, then would he be wrong? 

No, he wouldn't. He wouldn't be right either. It would just be his opinion.

And if we applied this idea to law, then you couldn't actually punish him for raping someone, because its technically not wrong.

I don't believe the down syndrome child has any less right to life than a healthy child does. 

Nor does the child with cancer. 

So yes or no?

You didn't answer my question. Should we be able to legally stab people with CIP?

Where is the line?

Is being happy and a free person an objective value, or only your opinion on what the goal should be?

Children are not free, some are not happy, and most aren't productive. Should we kill them?

24 weeks is still before birth. It's still a fetus right?

I'm not talking about most abortions; I'm talking about what you are arguing

The only one who would be forcing it would be the rapist. And rapists should be castrated or killed. 

Does this include being against other contraceptives besides abortion?

@WyIted

Most Democrats don’t state this out loud but it is their strategy for reducing the crime rate. What's wrong with that?

I'm going to assume that this is sarcastically rhetorical, but in the case that it's not, genocide is wrong.

There is a difference between abortion being morally justified and legal abortion. Abortion can be morally wrong, but legal.

Yes. Just like the extermination of Jews, by the Nazis was technically "legal" in that area at that time. 

I don't believe that society determines right or wrong, so yes you are right, but I am talking about morals.

This is because abortion being illegal can cause even more harm, even if abortion itself is morally wrong.

I think preventing the slaughter of millions of children annually would prevent harm, not create more. 

There are also different cases where abortion is more or less morally justified, like defects, late term abortions...

I believe abortion by definition, (human abortion) is morally wrong. 

Because by definition, it is the termination of a living human organism.

Now obviously there are cases where killing humas is justified, like self-defense. I believe that is the only time it is justified to kill another human. 

And abortion is not self-defense. 

Lives lived in pain and non-liberty have lower quality value compared to lives lived in liberty and non-pain.

I fundamentally disagree. 

When calculating saving lives, life of a doctor becomes more important than life of criminal, disabled or low ability.

I again, fundamentally disagree. 

Life of a healthy fetus at 8 months is more valuable than life of defective fetus at 3 months.

Thats a dangerous way to determine value. 

When discussing  a pro abortion position you have to clarify which position you are arguing from. Are you arguing from the stand point of when life begins or human when  rights begin. Science clearly states life begins at conception this is indisputable. Well you can dispute it but you would be arguing all of science is wrong and only you are right.   So that only leaves the arbitrary opinion of when human rights begin. Pick your arbitrary time from conception to time of birth as to when individual human rights begin. That's the abortion debate.

Seems weird that so many are “pro-life” without first being pro quality of life.

Size of mind does not make product of the mind objective. Product of the mind is still dependent on mind.

You can punish people even if their actions arent objectively wrong. They are wrong according to our standard.

I would rather produce healthy child than child with down syndrome. I myself would also rather be healthy.

The line is defined by my position in this debate. Fetus under 24 weeks can be aborted. Its simple.

Its the goal of most people. I said this before, there are no objective values. Value is in mind.

All children are closer to that goal than 24 weeks fetus, but banning abortion lowers quality of life.

Children should be free as much as possible obviously. They should also be happy. This is all obvious.

What you are suggesting wouldnt produce more quality life, and it would even reduce number of quality lives.

Your action of banning abortion forces victim who would otherwise have abortion, to give birth. This is clear.

You stand for pro life. Does this include being against other contraceptives besides abortion?

There was nothing "legal" about the extermination of the Jews. It was a military occupation and eradication of groups of people the tyrant dictator didn't like. There was no one to stop him until the US and Russia got involved. 

Also, what happened in Germany in WWII has absolutely no comparative value to the abortion topic. 

There you go again with the use of a misnomer. A pregnancy is not a child. 

According to various data sources like the Guttmacher Institute and CDC, before RvW was invalidated, less than 1.2% of all abortions performed in any given year happen when the fetus is viable.

Yet forcing a female to be your personal incubator to satisfy your feelings of morality is less morally wrong????

And? Every cell within the human organism meets the same basic biological criteria for life as the zygote, blastocyst, etc. Same for gametes too. Skin cells too, and each time you go out in the sun and get burned, you're terminating a living human cell(s). 

And if the pregnancy is a risk to the life of the female, it is self-defense and survival of the fittest to terminate the pregnancy. She can always try again. 

Really? A defective fetus at 3 months with the high probability of killing the pregnant female is a dangerous way to determine the value of the pregnancy???

I never said it was size. I said a greater mind. A mind that determines morality for all of us would have to be greater.

Ok. So, society determines morality then? 

If the Nazi's were in charge, would it be morally good do help hunt down Jews?

As would I. Doesn't mean you get to disregard the people with those illnesses and throw them away

Ok good. And is there a reason or reasons for that or just that it can't feel pain.

Are there objective truths?

So, your value in humans is their quality in life. How do you know someone suffering might rise out of it? 

How do you know someone successful might fall?

Is that really the way you want to determine worth and value?

No, the purpose of banning abortion is to prevent the murder of children.

If someone was raped, the only one forcing them to give birth would be the rapist.