Against abortion and against person-hood?

[quip]

As no right can have meaning without the ability to exercise it, life is by rational necessity preeminent among them. In recognition of that, the willful abrogation of it carries the most severe penalty a social compact can impose. And even then many argue against it. Abortion doesn't approach the litmus in nearly any case and by no means as the rule.

What of a litmus test for the assignation of this right for the unborn? Your applied instinct, under begrudged circumstance, seem to indicate a failure for such.

Is your presumption, against such, not an out-of-hand arbitrary abstention of the very standard you otherwise regard?

 

[Town Heretic]

What of a litmus test for the assignation of this right for the unborn? Your applied instinct, under begrudged circumstance, seem to indicate a failure for such.

Our instincts on the question are what have led in any number of directions and to any number of conclusions. I decided to look at the agreement and address the point as a rationalist. Else, we're just throwing darts with no guarantee of protecting the right we can't abrogate, or agree we shouldn't, given.

 

[quip]

Our instincts on the question are what have led in any number of directions and to any number of conclusions.

In this particular instance intuition leads to one inexorable conclusion.

I decided to look at the agreement and address the point as a rationalist.

Which is fine, until rubber must eventually meet road.

Else, we're just throwing darts with no guarantee of protecting the right we can't abrogate, or agree we shouldn't, given.

You're throwing no less darts, just painting bullseyes after the fact.

 

[Town Heretic]

In this particular instance intuition leads to one inexorable conclusion.

Which is fine, until rubber must eventually meet road.

Well, it's fine for me since I've yet to hear a rebuttal on any particular in either of my arguments on the point, only a great many declarations surrounding them. I know it's irksome to those who want to see a continuation of Roe, defenders of an arbitrary bit of legal muscle with a number of problems in formation.

You're throwing no less darts, just painting bullseyes after the fact.

To put as much into rebuttal, no. To put more, you can't actually make that point logically but I'm always game if you want to try.

 

[quip]

Well, it's fine for me since I've yet to hear a rebuttal on any particular in either of my arguments on the point, only a great many declarations surrounding them. I know it's irksome to those who want to see a continuation of Roe, defenders of an arbitrary bit of legal muscle with a number of problems in formation.

That's fine if you refuse to listen to your own moral insight in refutation of your own thesis. (Re: we have reasonable standing for challenge.) Just don't play off this self-pronounced dissonance as anything approaching the virtues of reason.

To put as much into rebuttal, no. To put more, you can't actually make that point logically but I'm always game if you want to try.

I must need not....the steps involved adequately take the lead.