Pro-life or Pro-MURDER

This is a motte and bailey argument.

The motte is that “murder, when defined as the killing of a human being after birth, is a bad thing.”

The bailey is that “murder, when defined as the killing of any human life whether before or after birth, is a bad thing.”

The first is intuitively obvious. The second is not. You’re just using the standard pro-life tactic of exploiting the intuitive response to the word “murder” and then slightly redefining it to suit your argument. I’ll hear you when you actually make the argument. 

To be clear, I'm not highly confident in my opinion on abortion -- I'm calling out the argument, not whatever your political view is with respect to abortion.

Immoral by whose standards?

Are you pro- fetal ownership or against fetal ownership?

I would definitely say that fetuses are owned

Yep. So were slaves at one point before they were conferred legal personhood.

pollywanna

So that fetus person should be released, it should not be imprisoned in the woman's body.

Free the fetus.

Tell me what is wrong with shagging?

Morality/immorality are abstract.

Therefore "shagging" is normal.

And marriage is a social construct.

Though neither of us is right and neither of us is wrong.

Given that there is no greater authority to judge us.  

Nonetheless; it's hypocritical of a Christian moralist to denounce their God's creation.

God createth the desire to shag.

Therefore; they will  shaggeth.

 

It is written

Your god is the cause of sexual immorality, for hundreds of thousands of years before your god was invented sexual immorality didn't exist.

Your absolutely right. Perhaps we should revoke legal personhood from the descendants of the original slaves because clearly that was the incorrect decision and there is no difference between unborn fetuses and slaves.

Who were the original slaves?

And God said to them, " Be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth and subdue it".

In other words, go forth and shag.

What is up with the quote from Genesis?

Or Alternatively the Scotus can confer legal personhood to a fetus to justify the ban on termination of pregnancy by killing a fetus at 24 weeks or some other arbitrary number they want to come up with. Would be nice to have the law applied consistently.

If the fetus isn't a legal person at 24 weeks, why the arbitrary ban?

I read a depressing article that said making ultrasounds mandatory for people getting abortions had the effect of closing down 6 out of 7 legal abortion clinics in the district of a state due to a severe drop in demand of services.

That's depressing when a simple image causes that many people to rethink the method of terminating a pregnancy.

Plus women can stop with the stupid slogan "my body my choice" and be much more accurate with "my fetus, my choice"

Because terminating a pregnancy does not have to involve destroying the fetus in most cases. In fact I doubt there would be any law restricting a termination of any pregnancy that does not destroy the fetus.

This is foolish and ignorant sophistry.

Why design a system that depends on sexual intercourse. If sexual intercourse is subsequently deemed to be immoral.

Would your God be that stupid.

Sexual Intercourse is not considered immoral by Christians, Jews, or Muslims.  What are you trying to say?

This is a motte and bailey argument. [LINK]

The immorality of sex was definitely mentioned.

if God invented the system then why do mere mortals think that they can define the rules of the system?

God isn't stupid, but he gave you the ability to choose to  be stupid.

It certainly isn't!

You can't prove anything to a nihilist.

Thank you for admitting to your lie.

Abortion is an eraser that corrects the mistakes of God and men. This is of greater value than the lost pre-natal life.

So are extinction event level asteroid impacts.