Unless anyone obects, I am going to request this thread be closed.

In sum, I offered that Roe v. Wade seemed a pretty good argument and ruing on abortion. It would appear that reasonable people pretty much agree and unreasonable people, well, are unreasonable.

If you don't want the thread closed, simply post a reply to keep it going. Today is 6 Feb. 2019.

In sum, I offered that Roe v. Wade seemed a pretty good argument and ruing on abortion. It would appear that reasonable people pretty much agree and unreasonable people, well, are unreasonable.

If you don't want the thread closed, simply post a reply to keep it going. Today is 6 Feb. 2019. — tim wood

Happy to have the post end, but your summary is self serving nonsense.

Happy to have the post end, but your summary is self serving nonsense. — Rank Amateur

There was no discussion of the merits of Roe. A comparable English law was introduced, and the discussion seemed to be that it was reasonable.

As to unreasonable people, that would be you. You presented a problematic argument, and when questioned were unable/unwilling to respond substantively. The best you could do is repeat it. Until and unless you directly and substantively deal with the problems with your argument instead of just ranting, I will feel comfortable representing you as unreasonable.

your total objections to the argument were, firstly a complete misreading of an innocuous assumption at the start, and secondly a semantic argument that the future does not exist.

Which was, to your credit much better than Banno's

"My argument in full: A woman has far greater moral worth than a piece of tissue."

From my point of view, I made the only full argument about the morality of abortion, and in 24 pages, no one has made a significant dent in it. Which seems to infuriate you all.

Which, by the way it shouldn't. If or if not abortion is immoral has almost nothing at all to do with if it should or should not be legal. Which is all Roe v Wade is about.

Rank thinks that the existence of a piece of tissue that is parasitic on a person permits us to tell that person what to do.

That's immoral. It's obscene. It encourages acts that are sins against the woman involved.

Rank believes this because of his Catholicism, but is disingenuous in this, attempting to hide his beliefs in convolute argument reminiscent of the rantings of theologians.

Closing the thread will only mean that @Rank Amateur moves on to another. Perhaps there is an argument for keeping the thread open as a sandpit for his happy tantrums.

secondly a semantic argument that the future does not exist. — Rank Amateur

You shall have to remind me what my complete misreading was of. As to the "semantic" argument that the future does not exist, I thought it was an existential argument. But you differ. Maybe this time you'll tell us: what, to your way of thinking is the future?

Don't waste my time with anything less than a direct answer. The future is....

All morally permissible actions are not immoral.
Abortion is morally permissible
Therefore, abortion is not immoral.

:grin:

Well, gentlemen, I'm glad we've finally put this matter to rest, and I look forward to seeing the notable absence of any future discussions on abortion.

If we keep this is up, we'll have this philosophy business resolved in no time.