Aggrad08 said:

---

You have more than once.

First you made (and seemingly abandoned) the argument the a quick death has less utility than one with prolonged suffering. This is a very difficult case and you didn't press it.

Then we move on to weather a person can make an argument for reducing the suffering of themselves in such a situation.

You at this point invoke religion. You've got no rational leg to stand on. You think it doesn't apply else where but it does.

I'm trying to walk you along step by step.

One we get to suicide in this situation The next question is battlefield euthanasia.

---

You're either mischaracterizing or misinterpreting what I'm saying. Criticizing utilitarianism is not automatically an appeal to religion.

Aggrad08 said:

---

You have more than once.

First you made (and seemingly abandoned) the argument the a quick death has less utility than one with prolonged suffering. This is a very difficult case and you didn't press it.

Then we move on to weather a person can make an argument for reducing the suffering of themselves in such a situation.

You at this point invoke religion. You've got no rational leg to stand on. You think it doesn't apply else where but it does.

I'm trying to walk you along step by step.

One we get to suicide in this situation The next question is battlefield euthanasia.

---

YouthInAsia? Why don't you care about YouthInAmerica? Commie!!!!

Aggrad08 said:

---

Yup but to not be a theocracy you need an appeal to reason and not religious dogma. You hit a wall at suicide. I didn't.

---

Because I recognize that the morals of this country are inherently judeo-Christian, so any appeal to a moral standard will be accused of being religious? You're being ridiculous. I can take your utilitarian logic and contort into incredible evil. I'm relying on universal moral principles to make a broad argument as to what actions should not be permitted in any circumstance. You're just stating that ending suffering might be what someone wants in the moment or might make parents feel better. Might want to reevaluate who is being logical.

Not meaning to derail here, but do you mind if I ask you what your religious philosophy is? Perhaps that could shed some light on your reasoning and thought process. You will get no judgement from me, I am just curious.

BTW, I know this is not R&P, but it is relevant to the thread.

Why do y'all even bother with these long drawn out debates? Nobody is changing their opinions.

Kvetch said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

You have more than once.

First you made (and seemingly abandoned) the argument the a quick death has less utility than one with prolonged suffering. This is a very difficult case and you didn't press it.

Then we move on to weather a person can make an argument for reducing the suffering of themselves in such a situation.

You at this point invoke religion. You've got no rational leg to stand on. You think it doesn't apply else where but it does.

I'm trying to walk you along step by step.

One we get to suicide in this situation The next question is battlefield euthanasia.

---

You're either mischaracterizing or misinterpreting what I'm saying. Criticizing utilitarianism is not automatically an appeal to religion.

---

You had no coherent argument against suicide besides "my god would not prefer that"

Kvetch said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Yup but to not be a theocracy you need an appeal to reason and not religious dogma. You hit a wall at suicide. I didn't.

---

Because I recognize that the morals of this country are inherently judeo-Christian, so any appeal to a moral standard will be accused of being religious? You're being ridiculous. I can take your utilitarian logic and contort into incredible evil. I'm relying on universal moral principles to make a broad argument as to what actions should not be permitted in any circumstance. You're just stating that ending suffering might be what someone wants in the moment or might make parents feel better. Might want to reevaluate who is being logical.

---

The first statement has cultural basis but no legal one at all and is long rejected in American jurisprudence.

And again I don't buy the slippery slope nonsense. No people are perfect utilitarians, deontological, consequentialist, virtue ethics proponent etc. all of these theories have holes and people use different ones at different times. That's why you have trolly car problems etc in philosophy.

And it's pretty easy to make rational secular counter arguments to your utilitarian extreme slippery slope. But you don't have a rational counter argument for this situation.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

You have more than once.

First you made (and seemingly abandoned) the argument the a quick death has less utility than one with prolonged suffering. This is a very difficult case and you didn't press it.

Then we move on to weather a person can make an argument for reducing the suffering of themselves in such a situation.

You at this point invoke religion. You've got no rational leg to stand on. You think it doesn't apply else where but it does.

I'm trying to walk you along step by step.

One we get to suicide in this situation The next question is battlefield euthanasia.

---

You're either mischaracterizing or misinterpreting what I'm saying. Criticizing utilitarianism is not automatically an appeal to religion.

---

You had no coherent argument against suicide besides "my god would not prefer that"

---

No, I said that specific case invokes more of a religious argument as to why it's wrong because it does not directly involve a third party and thus cannot really carry a penalty or be effectively legislated against. If you want to apply secular principles to it, suicide is cowardly and painful to those around you. It is a net negative on society. It is also immoral to individually choose to end a life, including your own. You are not God.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Yup but to not be a theocracy you need an appeal to reason and not religious dogma. You hit a wall at suicide. I didn't.

---

Because I recognize that the morals of this country are inherently judeo-Christian, so any appeal to a moral standard will be accused of being religious? You're being ridiculous. I can take your utilitarian logic and contort into incredible evil. I'm relying on universal moral principles to make a broad argument as to what actions should not be permitted in any circumstance. You're just stating that ending suffering might be what someone wants in the moment or might make parents feel better. Might want to reevaluate who is being logical.

---

The first statement has cultural basis but no legal one at all and is long rejected in American jurisprudence.

And again I don't buy the sloppy slope nonsense. No people are perfect utilitarians, deontological, consequentialist, virtue ethics proponent etc. all of these theories have holes.

And it's pretty easy to make rational secular counter arguments to your utilitarian extreme slippery slope. But you don't have a rational counter argument for this situation.

---

Why is suicide good, since you have such an iron clad case? Like you said, your point is going to have holes since philosophy of man is imperfect.

I know, that's a religious argument and has no standing in American jurisprudence.

But you are skipping the next step, the arguments do follow in the cases of euthanasia

And why is someone ending their life in less pain rather than more cowardly and more painful to those around them?

Aggrad08 said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

There is no justification for elective abortion. Ever. Not for rape, not for incest, never.

And cram it with cringe freakanomics takes. It's a very short hop between that and purging society of undesirables for any reason.

---

So if a baby has severe defects detected, it's brain is not developed, it's heart beats but doesn't work it has severe deformities and will likely be stillbirthed or die in the first 12-48 hours in a painful death. Born with some organs sticking outside the belly missing skin….
Horrid stuff.

---

Would you rather:

A) pass away from this mortal world in the arms of the person who loves you more than anyone else on the planet, or

B) be ripped apart limb from limb, alive, and sucked up into a shop vac; your remains to be sold for profit?


At any rate, this view reveals at best a false compassion and complete disregard for the human dignity of the poor child in this hypothetical scenario. Moreover, what if the doctor is wrong? If the last 2 years have shown us anything it's that doctors could never be wrong or full of sh*t, right?

Kvetch said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Yup but to not be a theocracy you need an appeal to reason and not religious dogma. You hit a wall at suicide. I didn't.

---

Because I recognize that the morals of this country are inherently judeo-Christian, so any appeal to a moral standard will be accused of being religious? You're being ridiculous. I can take your utilitarian logic and contort into incredible evil. I'm relying on universal moral principles to make a broad argument as to what actions should not be permitted in any circumstance. You're just stating that ending suffering might be what someone wants in the moment or might make parents feel better. Might want to reevaluate who is being logical.

---

The first statement has cultural basis but no legal one at all and is long rejected in American jurisprudence.

And again I don't buy the sloppy slope nonsense. No people are perfect utilitarians, deontological, consequentialist, virtue ethics proponent etc. all of these theories have holes.

And it's pretty easy to make rational secular counter arguments to your utilitarian extreme slippery slope. But you don't have a rational counter argument for this situation.

---

Why is suicide good, since you have such an iron clad case? Like you said, your point is going to have holes since philosophy of man is imperfect.

---

I already answered this. And not all suicide is good. I gave the scenario I'm speaking of, don't bait and switch you know the context perfectly well at this point.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

There is no justification for elective abortion. Ever. Not for rape, not for incest, never.

And cram it with cringe freakanomics takes. It's a very short hop between that and purging society of undesirables for any reason.

---

So if a baby has severe defects detected, it's brain is not developed, it's heart beats but doesn't work it has severe deformities and will likely be stillbirthed or die in the first 12-48 hours in a painful death. Born with some organs sticking outside the belly missing skin….
Horrid stuff.

---

Would you rather:

A) pass away from this mortal world in the arms of the person who loves you more than anyone else on the planet, or

B) be ripped apart limb from limb, alive, and sucked up into a shop vac; your remains to be sold for profit?


At any rate, this view reveals at best a false compassion and complete disregard for the human dignity of the poor child in this hypothetical scenario. Moreover, what if the doctor is wrong? If the last 2 years have shown us anything it's that doctors could never be wrong or full of sh*t, right?

---

I'd rather be dead in two seconds than suffering for months on end not a shadow of a doubt.

And this "doctors can never be wrong" trope is silly. There are degrees of knowledge and confidence in medicine some much more understood than others. That seems like a Frank conversation between doctors and patients. Certainly not something to be decided by drooling politicians.

Aggrad08 said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

There is no justification for elective abortion. Ever. Not for rape, not for incest, never.

And cram it with cringe freakanomics takes. It's a very short hop between that and purging society of undesirables for any reason.

---

So if a baby has severe defects detected, it's brain is not developed, it's heart beats but doesn't work it has severe deformities and will likely be stillbirthed or die in the first 12-48 hours in a painful death. Born with some organs sticking outside the belly missing skin….
Horrid stuff.

---

Would you rather:

A) pass away from this mortal world in the arms of the person who loves you more than anyone else on the planet, or

B) be ripped apart limb from limb, alive, and sucked up into a shop vac; your remains to be sold for profit?


At any rate, this view reveals at best a false compassion and complete disregard for the human dignity of the poor child in this hypothetical scenario. Moreover, what if the doctor is wrong? If the last 2 years have shown us anything it's that doctors could never be wrong or full of sh*t, right?

---

I'd rather be dead in two seconds than suffering for months on end not a shadow of a doubt.

And this "doctors can never be wrong" trope is silly. There are degrees of knowledge and confidence in medicine some much more understood than others. That seems like a Frank conversation between doctors and patients. Certainly not something to be decided by drooling politicians.

---

Trope? There are people *in this very thread* who have stories of doctors being certain of this thing or that and counseling abortion, only to be proven wrong.

And I reject the notion that the matter of abortion is "a frank conversation between doctors and patients." It is a matter for us to decide as a nation what kind of people we are. Will we stand up and protect the most innocent and helpless among us? Or will we continue to be an evil empire who murders its children at the altar of pleasure and materialism?

So are you going to have a federal panel decide which medical deformities a doctor can speak about to their patients and advise them on? What's you solution here?

With certain genetic testing for abnormalities the test are nearly perfect in accuracy and can be corroborated by direct observation on ultrasound.

Aggrad08 said:

---

So are you going to have a federal panel decide which medical deformities a doctor can speak about to their patients and advise them on? What's you solution here?

With certain genetic testing for abnormalities the test are nearly perfect in accuracy and can be corroborated by direct observation on ultrasound.

---

My solution is to outlaw the murder of said baby. Full stop.

Your solution makes the world a worse place for that baby and that mother in many situations.

There is literally nothing worse than a mother killing her child.

Their literally are many things worse.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

There is literally nothing worse than a mother killing her child.

---

Gassing 6 million jews?

Stalin murdering 20 million +?

Hyperbole much?

I've avoided this thread because it's one side that equates it with removing some tissue in your body and another that equates it with murdering a kindergartener. No one is going to have a eureka moment and change sides.

dermdoc said:

---

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the abortion debate is occurring during Advent? Where as Christians we eagerly await the Incarnation of God into a human body? In the same fashion all babies are created?

I wish someone would have the balls to ask Sotomayor if it is then okay to abort Jesus or essentially God Himself?

---

Or how It's literally biblical that John leapt for joy inside his mothers womb! That the unborn child recognized his savior and reacted to it. Sounds exactly like what a "some tissue" would do.

But, I suppose sotomayor would just say even the clinically brain dead would recognize Jesus and leap off the gurney for joy.

jrdaustin said:

---

Bag said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Bag said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Bag said:

---

coolerguy12 said:

---

I would hope anyone found giving or receiving an abortion would be prosecuted. Not sure what kind of weird gotcha this is.

---

prosecuted for what, come on say it, prosecuted for murder correct?

---

---

It's funny that he thought this was sort of gotcha.

---

"Hur dur you want people who murder babies prosecuted for murder?!"

Uhhhhh ya.

---

I prefer to fill the prisons with criminals. If young women violate the law and commit murder, I have no problem locking them up. Do you? Are you ok with murder if a woman commits it?

Oops. Meant to reply to Bag. Geez all his arguments are so shallow and devoid of critical thinking

---

My arguments are what they are, that the vast majority of the people on this thread support the abolition of abortion at any stage of the pregnancy. They believe it to be murder. Lets not bull**** each other with this 15 weeks nonsense, murder is murder right? If they believe all of these girls that have abortions are premeditated murderers they believe they should all be in jail and prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law, even if the procedure is done in a state where it is legal.

In my opinion, those are radical beliefs, and I would argue that the vast majority of Americans agree with me

---

Again, shallow. Nobody is bull****ting about 15 weeks. However, legally you have to put forth well crafted arguments surrounding the law as it currently exists. You could be morally right but still rejected by the courts if you don't craft your argument to current legal precedent. There's no hiding the ball here.

Why is it radical to believe terminating life is murder? Do you take issue with that standard? If so, let me know and we can just redefine murder to post-birth abortion.

---

lololol

My entire point is that my opinion wrt to abortion == murder is moot, it is what the law defines as murder that matters. If the people on this thread get their way and are able to outlaw abortion at any stage and prosecute all involved as murderers (lets me honest, that is what they all want) then we have serious problems as a society.

These ideas do not scale and, imo they are radical.

Again, just my opinion

---

And this, folks, is the textbook case of the Red Herring argumentative fallacy.

---

how in the world can you call this a red herring argument, when you literally have half a dozen people on this thread advocating for it.

and to be fair why wouldn't they if they actually believe that abortion is murder then it would be disingenuous for them to not absolutely want them convicted of murder and premeditated murder at that, even to the point where they go to another state where the procedure is legal and have it done that's how sick these people are

GeorgiAg said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

There is literally nothing worse than a mother killing her child.

---

Gassing 6 million jews?

Stalin murdering 20 million +?

Hyperbole much?

I've avoided this thread because it's one side that equates it with removing some tissue in your body and another that equates it with murdering a kindergartener. No one is going to have a eureka moment and change sides.

---

Yes. It is worse than all of those.

jrdaustin said:

---

Bag said:

---

and the same conservatives that champion pro life are totally fine with imprisoning kids for selling weed, you cannot reason with deviant wayward psychos

---

And that, friends, is the textbook case of the Straw Man argument! I'm still on page 7. Bag's going for the Hat Trick!

---

go back and reread the entire take says nothing to do with straw man argument I was simply responding to some guy that thought this was a red versus blue thing. my whole point in posting that was the tribal politics are the height of hypocrisy

Aggrad08 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Yup but to not be a theocracy you need an appeal to reason and not religious dogma. You hit a wall at suicide. I didn't.

---

Because I recognize that the morals of this country are inherently judeo-Christian, so any appeal to a moral standard will be accused of being religious? You're being ridiculous. I can take your utilitarian logic and contort into incredible evil. I'm relying on universal moral principles to make a broad argument as to what actions should not be permitted in any circumstance. You're just stating that ending suffering might be what someone wants in the moment or might make parents feel better. Might want to reevaluate who is being logical.

---

The first statement has cultural basis but no legal one at all and is long rejected in American jurisprudence.

And again I don't buy the sloppy slope nonsense. No people are perfect utilitarians, deontological, consequentialist, virtue ethics proponent etc. all of these theories have holes.

And it's pretty easy to make rational secular counter arguments to your utilitarian extreme slippery slope. But you don't have a rational counter argument for this situation.

---

Why is suicide good, since you have such an iron clad case? Like you said, your point is going to have holes since philosophy of man is imperfect.

---

I already answered this. And not all suicide is good. I gave the scenario I'm speaking of, don't bait and switch you know the context perfectly well at this point.

---

Not really, but whatever you say.

Bag said:

---

I do not believe the government has the right to force people to have children they dont want. sorry, not sorry

---

I'm not arguing against you, nor do I have a strong feeling about the issue one way or the other, but I will point out that the government also didn't force anyone to get pregnant in the first place.

Kvetch said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Yup but to not be a theocracy you need an appeal to reason and not religious dogma. You hit a wall at suicide. I didn't.

---

Because I recognize that the morals of this country are inherently judeo-Christian, so any appeal to a moral standard will be accused of being religious? You're being ridiculous. I can take your utilitarian logic and contort into incredible evil. I'm relying on universal moral principles to make a broad argument as to what actions should not be permitted in any circumstance. You're just stating that ending suffering might be what someone wants in the moment or might make parents feel better. Might want to reevaluate who is being logical.

---

The first statement has cultural basis but no legal one at all and is long rejected in American jurisprudence.

And again I don't buy the sloppy slope nonsense. No people are perfect utilitarians, deontological, consequentialist, virtue ethics proponent etc. all of these theories have holes.

And it's pretty easy to make rational secular counter arguments to your utilitarian extreme slippery slope. But you don't have a rational counter argument for this situation.

---

Why is suicide good, since you have such an iron clad case? Like you said, your point is going to have holes since philosophy of man is imperfect.

---

I already answered this. And not all suicide is good. I gave the scenario I'm speaking of, don't bait and switch you know the context perfectly well at this point.

---

Not really, but whatever you say.

---

" The opposite justification is a rather straightforward and almost universally accepted goal of minimizing pointless suffering"

As I said before it's not hard on my end if you accept a near universal stance. There is no added death, no added suffering.

Bag said:

---

combat wombat said:

---

Maybe we judt shouldn't kill babies. Ever.

---

there you go, at least own the fact that this has nothing to do with late stage abortion, at least admit that the goal is to outlaw all abortion.

at that point maybe we can have a real conversation

---

I'll proudly claim that I'm against all abortions. Except it's not possible to have a real conversation with someone who is willing to murder the most innocent for convenience.

They should all be outlawed. What "real conversation" starts with "under what conditions can we murder the defenseless?"

Also, nevermind, didn't realize Bag had been so thoroughly trounced on this thread already.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Yup but to not be a theocracy you need an appeal to reason and not religious dogma. You hit a wall at suicide. I didn't.

---

Because I recognize that the morals of this country are inherently judeo-Christian, so any appeal to a moral standard will be accused of being religious? You're being ridiculous. I can take your utilitarian logic and contort into incredible evil. I'm relying on universal moral principles to make a broad argument as to what actions should not be permitted in any circumstance. You're just stating that ending suffering might be what someone wants in the moment or might make parents feel better. Might want to reevaluate who is being logical.

---

The first statement has cultural basis but no legal one at all and is long rejected in American jurisprudence.

And again I don't buy the sloppy slope nonsense. No people are perfect utilitarians, deontological, consequentialist, virtue ethics proponent etc. all of these theories have holes.

And it's pretty easy to make rational secular counter arguments to your utilitarian extreme slippery slope. But you don't have a rational counter argument for this situation.

---

Why is suicide good, since you have such an iron clad case? Like you said, your point is going to have holes since philosophy of man is imperfect.

---

I already answered this. And not all suicide is good. I gave the scenario I'm speaking of, don't bait and switch you know the context perfectly well at this point.

---

Not really, but whatever you say.

---

" The opposite justification is a rather straightforward and almost universally accepted goal of minimizing pointless suffering"

As I said before it's not hard on my end if you accept a near universal stance. There is no added death, no added suffering.

---

Pointless is a relative term, first off. What we perceive to be pointless in a specific moment isn't necessarily pointless. The value of one additional day can't be logically quantified regardless of the level of suffering. Also, I can extend that to mean anything I want it to. Neighbor causing you pointless suffering through a property dispute? Kill him. It will reduce pointless suffering. Grandpa starting to get dementia? Kill him. It will minimize pointless suffering. Wife get diagnosed with breast cancer? Kill her. It will minimize pointless suffering.

The fact is that your standard forces one to play God and determine what level of suffering reaches the threshold that allows a mercy killing. Nobody has that right.

Innovate medical treatments or provide palliative care to minimize suffering. Don't resort to playing God and killing them. A doctors responsibility is to first and foremost do no harm. Death is the ultimate harm.

ETA there is certainly death added. You've just killed a human that was not previously dead. You do not know the day or the hour that a person will expire. Parents have been told their babies won't make it through the night only for them to live for many years. By your standard, no death can ever be added because everyone eventually dies. What is, according to your standard, the acceptable amount of time to shave off of a persons life? A day? A week? A month?

aggietony2010 said:

---

Bag said:

---

combat wombat said:

---

Maybe we judt shouldn't kill babies. Ever.

---

there you go, at least own the fact that this has nothing to do with late stage abortion, at least admit that the goal is to outlaw all abortion.

at that point maybe we can have a real conversation

---

I'll proudly claim that I'm against all abortions. Except it's not possible to have a real conversation with someone who is willing to murder the most innocent for convenience.

They should all be outlawed. What "real conversation" starts with "under what conditions can we murder the defenseless?"

Also, nevermind, didn't realize Bag had been so thoroughly trounced on this thread already.

---

agree, no conversation to be had, just juxtaposed positions.

confirmation bias is a *****, no doubt, compounded by tribalism, critical thought left long ago

Bag said:

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

Bag said:

---

combat wombat said:

---

Maybe we judt shouldn't kill babies. Ever.

---

there you go, at least own the fact that this has nothing to do with late stage abortion, at least admit that the goal is to outlaw all abortion.

at that point maybe we can have a real conversation

---

I'll proudly claim that I'm against all abortions. Except it's not possible to have a real conversation with someone who is willing to murder the most innocent for convenience.

They should all be outlawed. What "real conversation" starts with "under what conditions can we murder the defenseless?"

Also, nevermind, didn't realize Bag had been so thoroughly trounced on this thread already.

---

agree, no conversation to be had, just juxtaposed positions.

confirmation bias is a *****, no doubt, compounded by tribalism, critical thought left long ago

---

So if someone disagrees with you on abortion they are guilty of tribalism and lack of critical thought?

Wow.

Bag said:

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

Bag said:

---

combat wombat said:

---

Maybe we judt shouldn't kill babies. Ever.

---

there you go, at least own the fact that this has nothing to do with late stage abortion, at least admit that the goal is to outlaw all abortion.

at that point maybe we can have a real conversation

---

I'll proudly claim that I'm against all abortions. Except it's not possible to have a real conversation with someone who is willing to murder the most innocent for convenience.

They should all be outlawed. What "real conversation" starts with "under what conditions can we murder the defenseless?"

Also, nevermind, didn't realize Bag had been so thoroughly trounced on this thread already.

---

agree, no conversation to be had, just juxtaposed positions.

confirmation bias is a *****, no doubt, compounded by tribalism, critical thought left long ago

---

Except one position requires positing that one group of people is subhuman and can be disposed of.

There is no critical thinking to be done around something that is so black and white. There's good and there's evil. It's that simple.

dermdoc said:

---

Bag said:

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

Bag said:

---

combat wombat said:

---

Maybe we judt shouldn't kill babies. Ever.

---

there you go, at least own the fact that this has nothing to do with late stage abortion, at least admit that the goal is to outlaw all abortion.

at that point maybe we can have a real conversation

---

I'll proudly claim that I'm against all abortions. Except it's not possible to have a real conversation with someone who is willing to murder the most innocent for convenience.

They should all be outlawed. What "real conversation" starts with "under what conditions can we murder the defenseless?"

Also, nevermind, didn't realize Bag had been so thoroughly trounced on this thread already.

---

agree, no conversation to be had, just juxtaposed positions.

confirmation bias is a *****, no doubt, compounded by tribalism, critical thought left long ago

---

So if someone disagrees with you on abortion they are guilty of tribalism and lack of critical thought?

Wow.

---

go back and read through my posts, i have stated that both sides of this argument are guilty of it.

aggietony2010 said:

---

Bag said:

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

Bag said:

---

combat wombat said:

---

Maybe we judt shouldn't kill babies. Ever.

---

there you go, at least own the fact that this has nothing to do with late stage abortion, at least admit that the goal is to outlaw all abortion.

at that point maybe we can have a real conversation

---

I'll proudly claim that I'm against all abortions. Except it's not possible to have a real conversation with someone who is willing to murder the most innocent for convenience.

They should all be outlawed. What "real conversation" starts with "under what conditions can we murder the defenseless?"

Also, nevermind, didn't realize Bag had been so thoroughly trounced on this thread already.

---

agree, no conversation to be had, just juxtaposed positions.

confirmation bias is a *****, no doubt, compounded by tribalism, critical thought left long ago

---

Except one position requires positing that one group of people is subhuman and can be disposed of.

There is no critical thinking to be done around something that is so black and white. There's good and there's evil. It's that simple.

---

this pretty much sums it up perfectly

You are obviously guilty of confirmation bias, tribalism, and lack of critical thinking.

Join the club.

I just wish I could think like libs.