Major problem = point of direct disagreement.

What's not alive about a fetus? It's certainly not dead.

Is there any way for the government not to take a position on this? If they make no laws against it, then it's legal and they are basically taking a choice side, and if it's illegal they are taking a life side. Am I missing something?

Taking a pro-choice side means that they aren't doing anything to take away people's freedom to choose. It's the only option for the government imo.

Making abortions illegal or mandatory are the two sides of the coin. Pro choice leaves their hand out of it. In Original Position's words, the government would not be making a decision that everyone had to accept.

Ignorance must be bliss....enjoy your head in the sand you brainwashed jellyfish.

You are mixing your metaphors and insults. But did you know that ostriches don't actually bury their heads in the sand?

It may be true that black women have a lot of abortions but you cannot rightly call that genocide.

Brainwashed? Sounds like stereotyping.

I prefer Dr. Thompson's advice about feeling God:
http://www.beingknown.com/2011/04/wh...l-god-feeling/

Or you can check out Dr. C. Robert Cloninger's site Anthropedia:
http://www.anthropediafoundation.org...?pagename=home

Cloninger worked with Hamer on the god gene research.

Connecting our rights to our lefts: http://www.beingknown.com/2011/04/co...hts-and-lefts/

Pawntificator does a good job of responding, so basically what he said. The liberal view on this issue is that the government should try to preserve people's freedom to make their own choices about their life. Thus, we would be as opposed to a forced abortion policy (such as China's one-child policy) as to a forced childbirth policy. This is not to deny that there is a morally wrong or right decision in these matters, but that the government shouldn't be the one enforcing it.

I'm 100% pro-choice, but this is an extremely naive statement.

I mentioned this before itt, but I'll say it again since it's relevant to what you said.

I've been "involved" in two abortions. When I say involved I mean I got two of my gf's pregnant, and they each decided to have an abortion.

It's not something that is going to permanently scar me or whatever, but it has definitely been tough at times. When I'm around my nieces and nephews it makes me think of what my children would have been like. I've cried about it more than once.

Without a doubt, the woman suffers much more than the man, but to say that the man experiences "practically zero suffering or at least should be zero" is, as I said before, extremely naive.

Naive? I'd say it's descriptively false and normatively wrong.

This I have learned from this thread:

People who believe abortions are ok are akin to genocidal maniacs.

Abortion for someone who has been raped is wrong.

Stu Pidasso is on the level of extremists who think its ok to circumsize women. Or stone a woman to death for adultery. A really vile, evil piece of work due to religious conviction.

Meh, maybe I am wrong here, but don't consider it all that likely that there is any significant psychological harm done to most males. Anyway it is something that is clearly a lesser harm and can be better prevented by other means than by stopping women getting abortions.

I was fairly young when this went down so maybe that had something to do with it. But there's something powerful about knowing your kid would be X years old. Again, I'm not talking deep, deep scars. Just brief periods of feeling sad about what could have been.

You don't consider the fetus to be alive or you don't consider the fetus to be a human being? I ask this becuase it is a very tough sell to claim the fetus isn't alive...much tougher than selling the idea that the fetus isn't a human being.

Perhaps one day you will learn to attack the argument instead of the man.

I dont consider it a living creature. It's alive in the sense that skin cells are alive.

Some things aren't binary.

Nonetheless, if all you mean is that people will disagree with me well yeah - that's obviously true but I dont see why that should be equated with a major problem. I dont pretend that everyone should be persuaded by my moral views - they are generally quite confused and intuitively based rather than rigorously derived.

I find your moral framework difficult to accept. You could simply declare some one you don't like a p-zombie and shoot them in the head and have a guilt free conscious.

Nothing bunny posted itt suggests such a thing would be justified in his framework. If you think it's somehow an inevitable consequence of the views he posted itt, you'll have to show your work..

Its not justified as long he as considers people he doesn't like alive... but it does seem to me that the moment he thinks something isn't alive or something has less value then that which he loves it would be morally okay to destroy it.

I realize your intent is to show that considering a fertilized egg "not a living creature" somehow opens the door for everyone to consider his neighbor's annoying kid "not a living creature" and abort them.... but it really doesn't follow.

I don't want my neighbors to teach their kids that it is okay to destroy human beings you don't value for the convience of human beings you do value.

As long as they let the kids decide what constitutes a human being via critical thinking, then I agree with you.

This thread clearly shows a stark disagreement about this and one side imposing their view on the kids without presenting the counterarguments is bad.

What I am referring to is a moral framework that is centered on self.

"I don't want my neighbors to teach their kids that it is okay to destroy trees they don't value for the convenience of human beings I do value."

How does this differ from your worry?

You claim that bunny is not just going wrong in where he draws the line (between the morally valuable and non-valuable), but in the fact that he is drawing a line at all. However, we all (including you) distinguish between valuable beings and non-valuable beings. The difference here is that you do so on the basis of human DNA (any living being with human DNA is valuable) and bunny does so on the basis of something like, having a mind.

So you should focus your argument more on defending your human-DNA line rather than worrying about the propriety of making a distinction between the morally valuable and non-valuable in the first place.

I don't consider trees to be alive so that makes it okay to destroy them.