In the neo-liberal pile, if CML is to be believed.

Well you need to argue that.

we can't always know if the baby is life threatening. people have abortions for far less after all. but you don't accept those

https://twitter.com/eliza_bot/with_replies?lang=en

I never said we could.

That's the man you're after, btw.

lol it's not a strawman when i'm just working out your position

It is when you assume it.

are you going to be these fallacy jerkoffs

You're stating positions for me, not asking what my position is.

no, i'm trying to make sense of your stance on abortion. you drew a parallel to self-defence. that's a problem, because abortion isn't always decided on whether the baby is a threat

As long as you are in favor of lethal force self defense, you must, inherently, be in favor of at least 1 form of abortion. Read it slowly. I know the Canadian educational system is inferior to the USAs, but I truly believe in you.

ok. when a baby threatens a mother's life. but didn't you say that wasn't the form you defend

I never said a baby threatens a mother's life.

That would imply the baby is attempting to coerce the mother to a specific action, we are now giving the baby consciousness and/or motive.

Now it is a criminal that needs to be brought to justice.

Fetus policeus

whether it's conscious or not in some circumstances it's physically a threat to the life of the mother

that's the 1 form of abortion you defend is all i'm asking

That's the word you used, I am stating I don't agree with it. Context and language matters.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

well i'm not trying to trap you i just want to know exactly which form of abortion you defend

Up to the 48th trimester. Makes grocery shopping less cluttered.

so you are in favor of abortion categorically...

I'm at least in favor of one form of abortion.

so if i decide "fuck having a kid" in my 48th trimester that's cool

?

state mandated retroactive abortions!

its the only way

Only if their 18+

yeetus that foetus

My argument isn't designed to convince you that my opinion on abortion is correct, it is intended to demonstrate to *most* people that argue against it that they will *always* agree to at least one form of it, or they have cognitive dissonance.

Argue my argument, no ad hom plox.

i never insulted you

Insult =/= ad hom.

Example:

You are an idiot - Insult

You are wrong because you are a Canadian. - An ad hom... And an insult.

Arguing my personal view of abortion will not disprove my argument against others.

"My argument isn't designed to convince you that my opinion on abortion is correct" isn't this kinda weird? so you have multiple, possibly contradictory opinions about things and deploy one or the other to fuck with people?