That’s not very reasonable. Perhaps you are unreasonable and I made reasonable sense. Can one make sense of reason while unreasonable?

Its possible we just aren't communicating well. It doesn't take imagination to turn a fetus into an infant it takes an event.

A fetus is the unborn offspring. An infant is human offspring that is born. A 24 week human fetus which then is born prematurely is called an infant. If it wasn't born prematurely it would still be a called a fetus.

If I want to imagine a fetus turning into an infant, I just have to imagine a birth. Not that hard.

Maybe you don’t communicate well. People turn fetus into infants with their imaginations all the time. It one of the roots of the abortion is murder claim. People have literally tried to persuade me to imagine fetus are infants in pursuit of arguing that claim.

A 24 old week fetus looks like an infant to me so I believe those people have some credibility behind their point.

I don't claim abortion is murder because murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. Murder is a legal term not a moral one. Abortion is currently lawful killing in the United States. I do claim abortion is the killing of a human being......which it is. I further claim that it is immoral because we shouldn't kill human beings for reasons of convenience(which most abortions are). I'd like to hear an argument that shows even if abortion is immoral it should remain legal.

Abortion is a medical procedure. Unless you are the doctor of a person having one, why should anyone care about your claims about it?

The arguments would be

1) forcing a women to carry a baby is immoral
2) ineffective law can be immoral
3) democracy is required for the morality of laws
4) even if it is immoral - you don't know it's immoral.

Note that none of these arguments is particularly to do with abortion. Could be almost anything.

A lethal injection is a medical procedure and I think capital punishment in the United States is immoral too.

Medical procedures can be used to kill human beings.

A medical procedure necessarily needs consent, typically informed consent, sometimes implied consent, to be an authentic medical procure. Giving someone a shot is not a medical procedure. Giving someone a shot with their consent is a medical procedure.

And I do see how that’s similar to the man poisoning the woman is equivalent to a woman having an abortion argument, but with capital punishment as the equivalent in place of a man poisoning a woman.

A lethal injection to kill someone who wants to die(say they are terminally ill) and for that reason consents, is a medical procedure. Medical procedures can be used to kill human beings.

Also, its not unheard of for criminals to consent to their own execution. Some of them just want to die.

Go on, the more details you offer about lethal injection the more you falsify the equivalence with a woman going to the doctor for an abortion.

You have to find something comparable to a woman making a decision that is none of your business in order to make an apt comparison-equivalent. Or keep it simple. A woman going to the doctor is like a woman going to the doctor.

Well, I'm no doctor neither am I a philosopher. As some of you may have already surmised.
So, I turned to the all truthful and trusted internet for guidance.
It seems to me we've been using the term infant incorrectly.
According to what I've read, the correct term is that at conception, at first we actually have an embryo and at the 10th week of pregnancy, the embryo forms into a fetus.
An infant is after the birth.
Or maybe I missed something?
I'm still for the school of thought that abortion is not immoral but I nonetheless feel we have to be honest with each other.
Interestingly enough, a left leaning site called the Christian left blog, claimes that according to the Bible, a fetus is not a living person until it draws it's first breath. Thus, a fetus is not a human.
Now, to be clear. I was born into a Christian family but I don't I have long since ceased to practice my faith. I find religion abhorrent and just plain ludicrous. I especially hate it when the right leaning among us put religion over logic and common sense and especially over the laws of man.
Reason and the constitution are my religion.
I

I believe one of you beliefs is:

Abortion can't be the killing of a human being because it is a medical procedure.

The lethal injection example is to show that a medical procedure can be used to kill a human being and that the belief above is false.

I will grant you for the sake of argument that abortion is a medical procedure. Its performed on the mother and her prenatal offspring. The prenatal offspring is killed during the procedure which was the point of the procedure in the first place.

There is no argument for any immoral act to remain legal. The argument is that morality is arbitrary. In a democracy laws are (supposed to be) based on the preference of majority. In this system laws dont necessarily come from sound reason or conscience.

The problem is when people believe morality to be arbitrary, laws are simply an imposition of the majority's beliefs on the minority.

Ultimately, the only thing backing the law is violence. We have group A controlling group B through violence. Group B is immediately forced to either surrender or fight back with violence.

Maybe it is possible Group B will always relinquish their preferences and never reach a point where they feel the need to fight back, but history suggests otherwise.

This is a cycle of war.

I'll do you the favor that someone on 2+2 did me > 10 years ago and tell you to Read John Stuart Mill's book named "On Liberty."

I will listen to the book after I am finished with the Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn.

Perhaps morals are nothing more than prehistoric law. A survival instinct
passed down to us through the millenia. Humans long ago detirmined that their survival was enhanced through the group rather than the individual.
This forming groups to assure their survival. Although one is smarter, one is stronger, none the less, each depended on each other.
Thus, in order to keep the group cohesion, each individual has to be respected. Setting down morals (rules) to ensure the cohesion of the group. You shall not steal from your neighbors. You shall not covet their wife, etc,etc.

One doesn’t need to believe nor disbelieve to observe that an abortion is a medical procedure. More specifically it’s a private medical procedure.

Criminal executions are public. Again not a matter of belief, it’s just how it happens.

To answer the initial question: of course not. Everything illegal maybe deemed immoral, everything immoral is not illegal. Simply, should it be illegal to cheat on your girlfriend? Of course not. You can't regulate everything, the judicial system is backed up enough.

I like drdoornot's arguments, something to consider. If they would just give the man the right to sign his rights away before it's too late to have an abortion (12 weeks?) So the woman then can make a decision on whether to proceed as a single parent I think this would fix a lot of issues regarding abortion. You want to abort but the woman doesn't? Ok, you can no longer claim the kid in any capacity. The woman will receive no child support, alimony, etc....its her child. I'd be interested to see if this would change some women's minds as to whether they would abort or not.

Of course it's not full proof, but it at least gives the man the option.

Why all the extra rigamarole for women when men can simply choose not to give their sperm to any women until they, you know, find one who chooses to become a parent with them?

Because a pussy feels good

As stated in the OP the thread creator absolutely didn't want/intend this thread to be about abortion so I won't comment on that so

Separating kids from their parents and putting them in cages seems pretty immoral to me so should probably be illegal.

It’s not about abortion, it’s about what people think about morals and laws along with the breadth of evidence available. Abortion is illustrative how people can get quite moral while overlooking a basic element involved, such as the agency of women.

What about sincerity? When people make arguments to protect their morals with laws they sometime invoke their sincerity. Honest sincerity is particularly of interest.

Honestly sincere to the breadth of evidence or honestly sincere to a moral axiom? Suppose you take breadth of evidence as a moral axiom? Would such laws be orderly in an evidence based law system and moral to an axiom about evidence which is sufficiently flexible to handle any whole breadth of evidence?

Is moral to exclude evidence from a breadth because it doesn’t fit another moral axiom?

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Everything immoral should not be illegal because sometimes making an immoral thing illegal is a greater evil. For instance one could argue that abortion is immoral but forcing a woman to carry a baby against her choice is a more despicable action.

Don't take the above as me thinking you believe abortion is immoral. I realize this might not be true. Abortion is just the example that was used in the OP as the kick point for the discussion.

Yes that's argument 1) in the list. The imposition of a law might be worse than the thing you're trying to outlaw.