>>561
"Hate the sin, not the sinner."
Why? There's nothing wrong with hating people who commit wrong.
"You keep on focusing on personal flaws rather than surrounding circumstances. Very authoritarian."
My position is very libertarian. Are you saying that capitalists who then say that poor people are poor due to personal decisions are 'authoritarian'? Don't make me laugh. Abortion is the same sort of thing. The woman is in the position she is in due to her own irresponsibility, and I have no sympathy for her. She made a decision knowing there was some risk involved, and the risk ended up biting her in the ass. Too bad for her it was her choice that put her there.
"Well there's a slew of factors to take into consideration now. Life begins very late."
Outside of medical exceptions as aforementioned, I don't see what else needs to be considered. Ban late-term abortions asap. Throw those who commit them in jail just like you would a murderer.
"We're obviously not getting through to this one."
Because you fail to explain to me that the problems they face are due to anything but their choices. They had a choice, they made it, and if they fucked themselves up with that choice, that's too bad.
"See above, sheriff."
I don't see what you are talking about. If you have a refutation, I think I'll need to hear it said now.
"Well, they are. Acting in good conscience."
Gambling with your children's health, lives, and general well-being for the sake of satisfying personal desires is not 'acting in good conscience' in my opinion.
"Personal flaws, no environmental backdrop. This is the link between libertarians and authoritarians, and the latter knows how to exploit it, apparently."
I don't see what you are saying, or how what I would be saying is in any way 'authoritarian'. I disaprove of said women and their decisions, but I am not going to try to ban sex among diseased women.
"So does the one who built it, carried it and will be forced to take care of it."
This is not an issue. I'd like to offer the same sort of legal protections to the mother as I would the conscious/feeling/living human fetus. Why bother to say this? I have never advocated denying women the same legal protection as men.
"We don't know when it feels pain."
Sure. This doesn't alter the validity of my statement. Once we know when it can feel pain, or has senses, no more abortions after that point, with the aforementioned exceptions.
"Once the child has been proven to have developed a unique personality inside the womb, abortion is wrong. But the burden of proof is on you since we still have the utilitarian upper hand (crime rates fall as abortion is available, right to body and that)."
No, not a 'unique personality', once it has consciousness and or feeling, no more abortion, with the aforementioned exceptions.
I'd also like to ask, just for clarification, just what do you mean by a 'unique personality'?
"Are you a doctor?"
That is not relevant to the fact that you should not be allowed to commit infanticide, regardless of the fact that the babies' mind does not mature until a while after birth.
"A unique sequence of events experienced and transmitted to a brain that has reached adequate development. That is the kicker."
So are you trying to say that abortion should be generally allowed even when the fetus has attained consciousness and or senses?
"Sadly it does."
No, it doesn't. The fetus has an individual right to live. This right is not collective, and has nothing to do with everyone else. The decisions made on the outside world were the ones that resulted in the conscious/feeling fetus being there, and thus those on the outside world should have to bear the consequences of decisions made there, not the innocent late-term human fetus.