Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
One does not naturally follow the other. Your ethical position might inform the other. But they are entirely separate. It’s a completely rational position to believe that abortion is ethically wrong in every circumstance and still believe in free access to abortion is a fundamental right.
|
I suppose that it is theoretically possible for those positions to be consistent, but I cannot imagine how. If you think that abortion is ethically wrong in every circumstance, you presumably believe that the reason it's wrong in every circumstance it's that it's murdering babies. I'd be very surprised if you could come up with a rational set of moral principles that believes that, but also believes you should have a fundamental right to murder a baby.
Quote:
|
And the people in the UK who proposed the 28 week and the the 23 week and in 2008 the 20 week and the 16 week and the 12 week bans are not arguing ethics they are wedging to ban abortion in general. If you don’t like not serious I would accept not genuine or have alterior motives or arguing in bad faith. The person who believes that it is necessary for the state to restrict 3rd trimester abortions but not any other abortions and is arguing from a good faith position does not exist.
|
This is a completely ridiculous position to take that isn't even worth responding to. If you're going to, without any basis at all, attribute ulterior (not "alterior") motives to people simply because they've taken a position that millions of other people earnestly support, you're the one who's not being serious. That's just a beyond the pale level of delusion on your part.