That isn't the argument.

This is an ethical line in the sand... One which tons of people, of BOTH color ties, are afraid to look at.

One side wants capital punishment for criminals and the right to carry guns for lethal self defense... But declares all life inherently worth saving when it comes to abortions.

The other side wants to argue that there are 0 occassions in which a human life should be sacrificed, and inherently seekt o de-humanize fetuses/children in utero to do so...

I have constructed an ethical argument that shows there is a third position, an ethical super-position if you will, that people must resolve before they take a stance.

Either human life is inherently sacred, or it is not. Pick one.

NO WHERE in this ethical dilema/proof I offer do I state my personal stances.

I won't let you, or anyone else, do so.

you're mistaking dialogue for an attempt to put words in your mouth

Not at all.

abortion by firearms should be the only legal method

The first thing everyone tries to do when I present this to them is to infer my over-all position.

'You can go left, or you can go right, or you can go straight... Going backwards is useless.'

'OMG THIS GUY IS IN FAVOR OF GOING STRAIGHT! GET HIM!'

Metaphor.

just shoot the fetuses while they're in the womb

That would explain the gap in your teeth Raven. *snaps in a Z*

❤

god damn

brb, gotta go kill myself real quick

Nooooooooo!

All is sacred!

there aren't enough chairs in my comp sci class, so I'm sitting on the floor in the back of the room right now

perfect place for suicide

"Either human life is inherently sacred, or it is not." false dichotomy. you can take the first position without any belief in life being sacred. there are very few pro-lifers who would deny a young woman an abortion for a rape baby

Not a reply to you.

I mean...

why does the rape baby have to die? it ain't its fault

So you can believe that human life is sacred, but you can also believ eit is not?

Sacred is sacred.

INherent is inherent.

"you're assuming my position"

ffs I hate it when people weasel.

no, he was asking a question.

pardon... So 'someone' can believe that a human life is sacred, but 'someone' can also believe it is not sacred?

@Malign

snow infamously slows down the great parcel migration

I think you shoul dbe more aware of the ethical and religious use of sacred, and also of inherent in terms of philosophy.

there is obviously a continuum where you have life-is-sacred pro-lifers on the edge and limited-case pro-lifers further down the line

Inherent implies that whether you are there, or not, it still is.

And I am arguing that is cognitive disonance, or a lack of proper word usage.

absolutely not

Obviously so.

When a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?