Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
I get your point. It's using as a basis for a moral or ethical standard that I don't agree with.
Yours is no less arbitrary than the basis for my position that humanity trumps all animals. That said, I am most definitely pro-choice. But I require no mental gymnastics to defend my position. My position doesn't require that a fetus be of less value than a puppy. And it does not require any euphamisms to hide the fact that abortion kills a living thing. My position is quite simply that I have no right to force my morality on someone else if what they are doing causes me no harm. Pretty simple really.
Of course, following that logic says that you would ALSO believe that you have no right to "force your morality" on someone in the case of other acts like murder, assault, armed robbery . . . so long as you personally weren't the victim. I'm guessing, though, that you are in favor of the law prohibiting these acts toward people other than yourself.
Actually, all that strawman bullshit doesn't follow the logic at all. Quite the contrary in fact. But I know you already know what I meant and are being intentionally obtuse, so I'm not going to bother to explain.
No straw man. You're the one who said you wanted to judge morality of actions based on whether or not they hurt YOU. Abortion doesn't hurt YOU, so you have no right to say anything about it. But those other actions don't hurt YOU either.
I know what you meant. What you meant was that you want to apply one standard of morality to abortion and another to everyone else, so that you can feel like a "nice, openminded, compassionate" person without having to give any real thought to what you're advocating. And you're "not going to bother to explain" because you can't.