That doesn't really track. You don't discuss the fact that you only differ with the guy to your left ( the left being further by one degree or another toward conception on that chronological line) because it's patently necessary that you do so?
It isn't true. It isn't for any of you, as per the argument proffered. Or, while I accept that anyone may feel compelled to a point, I'm not arguing feeling or asking after it.
I can see why you wouldn't want it to, but in fact it is important to note that everyone else subscribes to the very thing so many of you announce as the very thing to be avoided, the subordination of the rights of the woman to make a reproductive choice. You only differ as to the where on that line...So among those competing with my approach are a host of prostitutes arguing that virtue is determined by price.
lain: "We hold these truths (rights) to be self evident" is how we managed it. That's the context. Anything is arguable. Is everything then arbitrary? It's a longer argument, but I'd take the "no" side and we can have that argument at some point if or as time permits.
Rather, we recognize the necessity of its protection as the foundation without which any right is meaningless.
My argument wasn't designed, let alone contrived, to do anything of the sort. It began as a simple recognition of the frame work of right and law and proceeded along its points. The circumstances involving and defining abortion aren't unconsidered. In fact, I noted that the defense of the mother's life can be advanced in the discussion. The question does preempt the assumption of Roe in asserting as it must that Roe risks without justification the thing we cannot do in the name of a right it creates to attempt to do so.
I'm still waiting on that particular objection.
It is not in any sense fallacious, there being nothing demonstrably mistaken in it. There is nothing disingenuous about it, as I meant every word I wrote and am not pretending to know a thing I don't. When I was faithless, unconcerned about the notion of some overriding morality and concerned primarily with the cohesive nature of my own standards I took a hard look at abortion and came to a measured conclusion. It is precisely because that argument proceeded from reason and not from faith that it rankles so many who see the division on point as one of religion vs the secular fold. It simply isn't.
No, due diligence isn't a string of accusations, assumptions and assertions. Nor is it a declaration of subjective valuation at the end of those. How you feel about it is of no interest to me. If you can do anything objectively about that feeling I'm content to meet the attempt...that I'm still waiting on while I mostly hear additional declared valuations like the flag you only just waved at me or worse, attempts to frame and kill the messenger.
Meanwhile, the argument remains. I only returned to this because you misstated it. I'll only remain or revisit when necessary to avoid anyone being the least bit confused on the points I've made or my willingness to engage on them.
