Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Fuddyduddy

amcalester wrote: »

Fool yourself however you want, denying a woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant access to abortion services is forcing her to remain pregnant.

Is this supposed to be an argument? "You're wrong and I disagree with you" lol..

The bed analogy would only be relevant if you could somehow carry the burden of the pregnancy or were otherwise impacted by the women ending the pregnancy which you obviously aren’t.

They duration of the condition has nothing to do with who is responsible for "forcing" the condition.

Women will kill their children with or without government. It doest mean immoral should be legalised. To suggest this as your reasoning for permitting abortion would be fallacious.

Anyway, just wanted to comment on that tired old mantra of "being forced. Women have the privilege of killing their children on home soil now.

amcalester

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Women have the privilege of killing their children on home soil now.

Surprised this didn’t make the news, when were women granted this privilege?

ohnonotgmail

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Probably a good idea to bow out when you dont have an argument.

and your argument is what exactly? I have yet to see one that justifies the prevention of abortion.

Fuddyduddy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and your argument is what exactly? I have yet to see one that justifies the prevention of abortion.

I wasn't making an argument about what abortion is. I was commenting on the use of the word "force".

I'll happily have that conversation with you though, although the 8th has been repealed so I'm not sure you'll want to bother if you're content with your current understanding.

King Mob

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Saying there will be consequences is not the same as forcing someone

That's the exact same as forcing someone.
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/force_2

to make someone do something that they do not want to do, for example by using or threatening to use violence

Your petantism seems to be very selective as you keep using the phrase "murder her child" when that is very very incorrect on every level.

robindch

splinter65 wrote: »

The mind gymnastics that you put yourself through in order to straighten this whole subject out in your own head is totally beyond my comprehension aloyisus and I suspect it’s almost beyond yours.

splinter - no need for that kind of incivility - here in A+A, you are broadly expected to assume the best of the other forum posters, not the worst.

King Mob wrote: »

It's infuriating that the mods are allowing and defending you using this tactic.

KingMob - you've complained more than any other poster, and perhaps more than all other posters put together, about other forum members. If you find the forum infuriating, then there are plenty of other forums out there on the internet where you can vent your righteous outrage as much as you wish, and many of which might even encourage it, if not monetize it. If you would prefer, on the other hand, to engage in a discussion which is as civil as the forum members and the moderators can make it, then by all means, stick around. And be civil. Thank you.

Fuddyduddy

King Mob wrote: »

That's the exact same as forcing someone.
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/force_2


Your petantism seems to be very selective as you keep using the phrase "murder her child" when that is very very incorrect on every level.

The definition cited in your own link proves my point.

"to make someone do something that they do not want to do, for example by using or threatening to use violence"

Pregnancy is a pre-existing condition for the pregnant mother. Saying you should not do something as there will be consequences, is not the same as forcing someone TO DO something.

"force someone to do something: He claims that police officers forced him to sign a confession."

Directly making i.e forcing someone TO DO something is not the same as saying there will be consequences IF YOU DO something. The first one is to MANDATE an action. The difference is in the former, there is an impetus behind the condition happening, and the latter, there isn't.

No one is being mandated to undergo the condition of being pregnant (it's a physical impossibility to do so).

I'm assuming you meant "pedantism". Pointing out the definitions of words when it comes to who bears the burden of responsibility in society is not being a pedant. It's simply wrong to suggest that making something illegal is forcing someone to do something.

Again, outlawing rape isn't forcing you not to be a rapist; it's simply saying if you do rape, there will be consequences.

The problem is you(?) or the other poster have created this false dichotomy between being pregnant/having a child and abortion being legal. The option to kill will always exist regardless, so you aren't being forced to do anything.

Lastly, if you are going to be intellectually honest, get your facts straight. Nowhere did I say "murder" (other than define it as illegal intentional homicide at the beginning). I said "kill".

Murder is by definition illegal. So if killing your two year old became legal, it wouldn't be murder; it would simply be intentional homicide.

King Mob

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

The definition cited in your own link proves my point.

"to make someone do something that they do not want to do, for example by using or threatening to use violence"

Pregnancy is a pre-existing condition for the pregnant mother. Saying you should not do something as there will be consequences, is not the same as forcing someone TO DO something.

"force someone to do something: He claims that police officers forced him to sign a confession."

Directly making i.e forcing someone TO DO something is not the same as saying there will be consequences IF YOU DO something. The first one is to MANDATE an action. The difference is in the former, there is an impetus behind the condition happening, and the latter, there isn't.

No one is being mandated to undergo the condition of being pregnant (it's a physical impossibility to do so).

Lets see if I got this right...
No one was forcing any to be a slave in the American South, right?
You can't force someone to be a slave as they could leave any time they wanted. The consequences are a separate matter and don't force someone to remain a slave?

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

I'm assuming you meant "pedantism".

:rolleyes:

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Pointing out the definitions of words when it comes to who bears the burden of responsibility in society is not being a pedant. It's simply wrong to suggest that making something illegal is forcing someone to do something.

So then do you believe that abortion should be illegal?
If not, or you decline to state your opinion, what's your point to your pedantism?

I think the meaning of the posters who use force in the "incorrect" way is still very clear.
It's a bad thing to place barriers to abortion that enforce consequences to persuade people not to have them should a person not what to continue their pregnancy.

A simple, very understandable, much more concise way to put that is: it's wrong to force people to continue with a pregnancy they don't want.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Lastly, if you are going to be intellectually honest, get your facts straight. Nowhere did I say "murder". I said "kill".

Murder is by definition illegal. So if killing your two year old became legal, it wouldn't be murder; it would simply be intentional homicide.

Then "killing your child" is still an incorrect statement in the same way.
It's not killing and it's not a child.

Fuddyduddy

King Mob wrote: »

Lets see if I got this right...
No one was forcing any to be a slave in the American South, right?
You can't force someone to be a slave as they could leave any time they wanted. The consequences are a separate matter and don't force someone to remain a slave?

Oh boy. This is going to be a long one.

Think really hard about this. How did they become slaves? They were FORCED INTO SLAVERY. The impetus behind the condition was on the slave owners.

Outside of rape, no one is being FORCED INTO PREGNANCY. The condition of being pregnant is PRE-EXISTING.

The condition of slavery WAS NOT.

You are FORCED INTO SLAVERY, and once you are a slave, the condition has been set. You cannot perpetually force an already existing condition. Slaves were only once forced INTO slavery.

If you want to use force as common parlance for compelling a pre-existing condition, then you need to compare a true equivalency, and not this false dichotomy I've explain three times now.

If a slave is physically restrained by his slave owner, then he is being prevented from having his freedom through force. In this scenario his condition is being upheld continually by the owner by preventing them from being unchained.

With abortion, the option to kill your child always exists, even when it is illegal. It is a physical impossibility to compel a pre-existing condition, especially when it is a dichotomy that is not jointly exhaustive.

For a final time. If a government outlaws rape, if isn't forcing you not to rape; it is simply saying there will be consequences if you do rape.

Forcing inaction is an oxymoron.

So then do you believe that abortion should be illegal?
If not, or you decline to state your opinion, what's your point to your pedantism?

I'm not being a pedant, and I already answered why. The meaning of words is important when discussing responsibility and law.

Of course I'm against abortion. I simply entered this thread to explain why her statement was erroneous.

I think the meaning of the posters who use force in the "incorrect" way is still very clear.
It's a bad thing to place barriers to abortion that enforce consequences to persuade people not to have them should a person not what to continue their pregnancy.

A simple, very understandable, much more concise way to put that is: it's wrong to force people to continue with a pregnancy they don't want.

We fundamentally disagree.

Then "killing your child" is still an incorrect statement in the same way.
It's not killing and it's not a child.

Actually, you are incorrect on this as well.

Killing is scientifically - and by every definition - the ending of a life. This can be as simple as single cell death or killing bacteria.

I will give you the modern day definition of "Child"; from both an America and British Dictionary, and I will also explain the etymology of the word for further clarification.

The word "child" comes from the Old English "ċild", which meant "fetus" or more appropriately "female fetus".

The modern day definition of child means any human below the age of puberty, born and unborn.

King Mob

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Oh boy. This is going to be a long one.

Think really hard about this. How did they become slaves?

...

You are FORCED INTO SLAVERY, and once you are a slave, the condition has been set. You cannot perpetually force an already existing condition. Slaves were only once forced INTO slavery.

...

If you want to use force as common parlance for compelling a pre-existing condition, then you need to compare a true equivalency, and not this false dichotomy I've explain three times now.

So then people born into slavery?

pleas advice

King Mob wrote: »

It's not killing and it's not a child.

It is killing though, I mean, of course its killing,

Fuddyduddy

King Mob wrote: »

So then people born into slavery?

They were forced into slavery the same as their parents.

King Mob

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

They were forced into slavery the same as their parents.

But they were born a slave. How, according to your definition can they be forced to continue a pre-existing condition?

Fuddyduddy

King Mob wrote: »

But they were born a slave. How, according to your definition can they be forced to continue a pre-existing condition?

The definition of slavery is owned as property and forced to work. Being kidnapped is not the same as being a slave.

King Mob

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

The definition of slavery is owned as property and forced to work. Being kidnapped is not the same as being a slave.

But that's being forced to work. Not being a slave.

And children born into slavery are not kidnapped. Your definition above states that they are slaves from birth.
You can't force a baby to work, yet they are still slaves, so being forced to work doesn't factor into the definition.

So they might be forced to work, but by your definition, they aren't forced to be slaves.


I also think due to your definitions, they can't be forced to work either, as that would be a matter of consequences too. They can always choose to not to work or leave...

Fuddyduddy

King Mob wrote: »

But that's being forced to work.

And children born into slavery are not kidnapped.
So they might be forced to work, but by your definition, they aren't forced to be slaves.

I also think due to your definitions, they can't be forced to work either, as that would be a matter of consequences too. They can always choose to not to work or leave...

Children "born into slavery", aren't literally born slaves. There is no biological condition known as slavery. Being born into anything is a colloquial expression to explain the circumstances surrounding your life.

A child born to slave parents was forced into existence through no will of their own, and then at an appropriate time was put to work.

King Mob

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Children "born into slavery", aren't literally born slaves. There is no biological condition known as slavery. Being born into anything is a colloquial expression to explain the circumstances surrounding your life.

A child born to slave parents was forced into existence through no will of their own, and then at an appropriate time was put to work.

But your definition above states that they are slaves from birth before they can be forced to work.

And again how can they be forced to work? Are they restrained to some kind of mechanism that moves their arms for them?
It can be that there would be consequences if they didn't, as according to your definition, that isn't forcing.

Fuddyduddy

King Mob wrote: »

But your definition above states that they are slaves from birth before they can be forced to work.

And again how can they be forced to work? Are they restrained to some kind of mechanism that moves their arms for them?
It can be that there would be consequences if they didn't, as according to your definition, that isn't forcing.

Slavery entails 1/ being owned as property and compelled to obey the owners instructions 2/ forced to work.

From the above a child can be born (forced) into the circumstances of being "owned" as a slave.

Slavery was a legal framework upholding the condition via continuous compulsion. Leaving the plantation didn't negate the condition of being legally recognised as being a slave. Once a slave, they were recognised as such until freedom was granted.

Your last paragraph brings us full circle with our definition of the word "force", and why you arent understanding the difference between impetus for action and absence of such for inaction, and also why slavery is a terrible analogy for pregnancy.

Force/compuslion/coercion TO DO something is not the same as consequences for pre-existing conditions. Pregnancy is a continuous condition that doesn't require force to buttress it. It simply is an ongoing independent biological process until it reaches its own conclusion. It didn't require governmental force for it to exist, and it doesn't require governmental force for it to continue to exist. It is independent.

Slavery is a societial construct of ownership and not something that exists as an objective physical reality. Once they are legally considered slaves, they are always slaves until they are given their freedom or they leave the state/country. Ensuring they obey demands requires ongoing coercion TO DO something. To obey orders, to do work, to stay put. This is the fundamental difference between being forced TO DO something, and the oxymoron of forcing inaction.

King Mob

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Slavery entails 1/ being owned as property and compelled to obey the owners instructions 2/ forced to work.

From the above a child can be born (forced) into the circumstances of being "owned" as a slave.

But that all falls apart given the definitions you have provided.
Your definition, that you provided stated that a child was a slave from birth. They weren't forced to become a slave. They were a slave.
This was also independent from being forced to work as babies cannot work, yet were still slaves.

The fact you are not trying to use biology to make a distinction is as irrelevant as it is pedantic.

But again. You don't agree with the terminology most people use and understand. Bully for you.
You believe that a person should be prevented or discouraged from ending a pregnancy they do not want to continue.
Most people think that is not a good thing.
That's why your side lost the referendum.

Fuddyduddy

King Mob wrote: »

But that all falls apart given the definitions you have provided.
Your definition, that you provided stated that a child was a slave from birth. They weren't forced to become a slave. They were a slave.
This was also independent from being forced to work as babies cannot work, yet were still slaves.

The fact you are not trying to use biology to make a distinction is as irrelevant as it is pedantic.

But again. You don't agree with the terminology most people use and understand. Bully for you.
You believe that a person should be prevented or discouraged from ending a pregnancy they do not want to continue.
Most people think that is not a good thing.
That's why your side lost the referendum.

Being born is being forced into existence. If you are forced into existence, and your immediate existence is being "owned" as a slave, then yes they absolutely WERE forced into slavery.

Its not irrelevant or pedantic. By your definition of the word "force" the government is "forcing" one not to kill by making murder illegal, forcing one not to rape by making rape illegal, forcing one not to sell drugs by making selling drugs illegal, forcing one not to drink drive by making it illegal to drink and drive. It is simply illogical and incorrect use of the word.

Forcing inaction is an oxymoron.

There is no complusion or coercion TO ACT or DO anything. It is merely a statement of consequences IF YOU DO something. They haven't mandated anything. Nothing is being forced. The only way you could argue that force was involved is, for example, in order to stop someone from killing you directly prevented them in middle of the act.


YES! Your last paragraph is 100% correct grammatically and in its content. I do want to prevent people from killing their unborn children as much as possible.

And yes, this is why "my side" lost the referendum. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy that oesn't necessarily equal objective morality - right and wrong.

King Mob

Hang on now, being born is being forced to exist?
A biological process forces some one yo do something?
That doesn't fit with your definitions at all...

But anyway, the points are clear, whether you say "forced to be pregnant when you don't want to be" or "prevented from ending a pregnancy you do not want" the effect is the same.
It's wrong to prevent someone from ending a pregnancy they don't want.

If you don't want to end your pregnancies then no one will force you.

volchitsa

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Being born is being forced into existence

So isn't everyone "forced" into existence? I don't know of anyone who chose to be born. Do you?

If you are forced into existence, and your immediate existence is being "owned" as a slave, then yes they absolutely WERE forced into slavery.

Forced by a biological process, ie pregnancy. Wait, that sounds familiar.

Its not irrelevant or pedantic. By your definition of the word "force" the government is "forcing" one not to kill by making murder illegal, forcing one not to rape by making rape illegal, forcing one not to sell drugs by making selling drugs illegal, forcing one not to drink drive by making it illegal to drink and drive. It is simply illogical and incorrect use of the word.

Forcing inaction is an oxymoron.

Like being born?
But you just said the opposite. Hard to think of anything more "inactive" than being born.

There is no complusion or coercion TO ACT or DO anything. It is merely a statement of consequences IF YOU DO something. They haven't mandated anything. Nothing is being forced. The only way you could argue that force was involved is, for example, in order to stop someone from killing you directly prevented them in middle of the act.


YES! Your last paragraph is 100% correct grammatically and in its content. I do want to prevent people from killing their unborn children as much as possible.

And yes, this is why "my side" lost the referendum. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy that oesn't necessarily equal objective morality - right and wrong.

Your attempts at explaining some sort of logic behind your thinking having collapsed in a muddy puddle, you're reduced to telling us you're right and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.

Okay. Now that is impossible to argue with.

Fuddyduddy

King Mob wrote: »

Hang on now, being born is being forced to exist?
A biological process forces some one yo do something?
That doesn't fit with your definitions at all...

How does it not? I meant to say conceived by the way, it was after 4am when I typed this.

But anyway, the points are clear, whether you say "forced to be pregnant when you don't want to be" or "prevented from ending a pregnancy you do not want" the effect is the same.
It's wrong to prevent someone from ending a pregnancy they don't want.

If you don't want to end your pregnancies then no one will force you.

We fundamentally disagree.

Fuddyduddy

volchitsa wrote: »

So isn't everyone "forced" into existence? I don't know of anyone who chose to be born. Do you?

Yes.

Forced by a biological process, ie pregnancy. Wait, that sounds familiar.

The mother's own body causes conception via chemotaxis and then facilitates implantation of the embryo.

Like being born?
But you just said the opposite. Hard to think of anything more "inactive" than being born.

Being born is inactive? If I push you into a room - I am forcing you into that room. I also meant to say conception, it was after 4am when I wrote that. Force is the impetus behind something being done. Becoming a zygote i.e a new human being is an action that the unborn child is not responsible for.

Your attempts at explaining some sort of logic behind your thinking having collapsed in a muddy puddle, you're reduced to telling us you're right and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.

Okay. Now that is impossible to argue with.

I haven't reduced to anything.I explained very clearly the logic behind "force". I think you are conflating that with an argument on abortion as a whole that I never even began to make. The entire premise of this was the use of the word force.

If you want to have a conversation about why abortion IS wrong, then I am happy to. But like I said to the other poster, abortion is legal now, so I'm not sure you want to if you are content in your current understanding.

Hannibal_Smith

What on earth has happened in here? :eek: :pac: :pac:

Fuddyduddy, I think you're missing a fundamental point. Having to remain pregnant against your will, is being forced to remain in a situation you don't want to be in.

I can never understand why people who don't agree with abortion,think they have the right to tell other people they shouldn't agree with it either. It could never affect you or have any bearing on your life. Why not mind your own business? Why is it your business what kind of treatment other people seek?

Fuddyduddy

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I can never understand why people who don't agree with abortion,think they have the right to tell other people they shouldn't agree with it either. It could never affect you or have any bearing on your life. Why not mind your own business? Why is it your business what kind of treatment other people seek?

You're already in that situation when you're pregnant, you cant be re-forced into something that already exists. It's not like you are enslaved, escaped, and then are forced back into slavery.

These kinds of arguments just highlight that the abortion advocate side fundamentally don't even begin to understand the pro-life position AT ALL.

Is it my business if you neglect your 2 year old?

Is it the person's business who lives two counties over that you drowned your 5 year old?

Is it anyone else's business if you kill your neighbour?

None of the above directly affect you. You were not involved. It has no direct bearing on your life.

The law exists to (is supposed to) hold everyone accountable for the their actions.

Abortion isn't "treatment". It is the ending of an innocent human life. It is only medically necessary when the mother's life will end otherwise. In which case you have a case of 2 deaths vs 1, and the rational thing is to take the lesser of two evils.

volchitsa

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

You're already in that situation when you're pregnant, you can be re-forced into something that already exists.

Just "being pregnant" isn't all there is to it though, is it? What about labour? Forcing someone to continue a pregnancy is forcing them to risk all the complications that can develop during the pregnancy - high blood pressure, diabetes, and then labour itself. So no, I don't think many people would accept your view of pregnancy as a "steady state".

It's not like you are enslaved, escaped, and then are forced back into slavery.

I don't know what you mean here, would slavery be different if the person could never manage to escape from it?

]These kinds of arguments just highlight that the abortion advocate side fundamentally don't even begin to understand the pro-life position AT ALL.

Is it my business if you neglect your 2 year old?

Is it the person's business who lives two counties over that you drowned your 5 year old?

Is it anyone else's business if you kill your neighbour?

None of the above directly affect you. You were not involved. It has no direct bearing on your life.

The law exists to (is supposed to) hold everyone accountable for the their actions.

Abortion isn't "treatment". It is the ending of an innocent human life. It is only medically necessary when the mother's life will end otherwise. In which case you have a case of 2 deaths vs 1, and the rational thing is to take the lesser of two evils.

We've been over all this before, people just don't accept the analogy because even prolifers can't make it stand up. When could anyone be allowed to kill the two year old or the neighbour without even standing trial? It wouldn't happen.

So it's just not comparable, no matter how often you repeat it.

Fuddyduddy

volchitsa wrote: »

Just "being pregnant" isn't all there is to it though, is it? What about labour? Forcing someone to continue a pregnancy is forcing them to risk all the complications that can develop during the pregnancy - high blood pressure, diabetes, and then labour itself. So no, I don't think many people would accept your view of pregnancy as a "steady state".

Now you are arguing a strawman. I never said pregnancy was "steady". I said pregnancy is a pre-existing condition once it occurs. You are still continually pregnant regardless of the fluctuations of perceived difficulty or suffering.

The condition IS being pregnant.

I don't know what you mean here, would slavery be different if the person could never manage to escape from it?

What do you mean? If you managed to escape you wouldn't be a slave. If you kill your unborn child, you aren't pregnant anymore.

We've been over all this before, people just don't accept the analogy because even prolifers can't make it stand up. When could anyone be allowed to kill the two year old or the neighbour without even standing trial? It wouldn't happen.

So it's just not comparable, no matter how often you repeat it.

This is a fallacy. Legality =/= objective morality.

Vivisections WERE legal in Japan in WWII; did that make them moral? Or amoral?

Slavery EXISTED throughout human history legally; did it make that immoral? Or amoral?

Just because something isn't currently legal doesn't mean the act isn't a true equivalency.

In both scenarios - abortion - and killing a newborn, an innocent human being's life is being directly taken with intent. Your justification is that we are not directly involved in that child's life or the mother's pregnancy, so we should have no say.

I am highlighting why this is logically fallacious, as we enforce laws all the time surrounding situations we are not directly involved in or affected by.

volchitsa

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Now you are arguing a strawman. I never said pregnancy was "steady". I said pregnancy is a pre-existing condition once it occurs. You are still continually pregnant regardless of the fluctuations of perceived difficulty or suffering.

The condition IS being pregnant.

I'm not intentionally arguing a straw man, I just genuinely don't understand what point you're trying to make here. What difference does it make that we use one word for the whole of a pregnancy?

You made a point about people being forced to be born, even though we're all forced to be born, but you completely dismiss the fact that women who don't want to continue a pregnancy are forced to give birth. I've idea what you really mean here and nor, I suspect, do you.

What do you mean? If you managed to escape you wouldn't be a slave. If you kill your unborn child, you aren't pregnant anymore.

Well earlier you were saying the two states weren't the same, now you seem to be saying they are.

Agat it's hard to know what you're arguing exactly.

This is a fallacy. Legality =/= objective morality.

Vivisections WERE legal in Japan in WWII; did that make them moral? Or amoral?

Slavery EXISTED throughout human history legally; did it make that immoral? Or amoral?

Just because something isn't currently legal doesn't mean the act isn't a true equivalency.

In both scenarios - abortion - and killing a newborn, an innocent human being's life is being directly taken with intent. Your justification is that we are not directly involved in that child's life or the mother's pregnancy, so we should have no say.

I am highlighting why this is logically fallacious, as we enforce laws all the time surrounding situations we are not directly involved in or affected by.

Those examples don't say anything about abortion though, because we're not in wartime Japan or whatever, we're in a country where the people are allowed to discuss and have a say in all the laws, at the very least by voting on them. And we have no difficulty in reaching a consensus about the illegality of murder or the legality of non marital sex, regardless of their perceived morality.

Morality and legality are indeed two different issues.

So in this society, it's up to those who want something to be made legal or illegal (when there is no obvious consensus, as for murder) to argue why they want that to be so.

That's what we did, and your side failed to convince a huge section of society.

Comparing that democratic decision to wartime Japan where opponents to the government were imprisoned or even killed is pretty shocking really. It shows a complete lack of belief in the democratic system.

Really you just need to make a better argument than "you're all immoral murderers". Even if that's what you think.

Fuddyduddy

volchitsa wrote: »

Those examples don't say anything about abortion though, because we're not in wartime Japan or whatever, we're in a country where the people are allowed to discuss and have a say in all the laws, at the very least by voting on them. And we have no difficulty in reaching a consensus about the illegality of murder or the legality of non marital sex, regardless of their perceived morality.

Again, argmentum ad populum doesn't negate the true equivalency of abortion - the taking of an innocent human life - and killing a new born - the taking of a innocent human life. You can argue the circumstances surrounding why it was done, but it doesn't change the reality of the two equivalent actions.

Morality and legality are indeed two different issues.

Glad you agree.

So in this society, it's up to those who want something to be made legal or illegal (when there is no obvious consensus, as for murder) to argue why they want that to be so.

That's what we did, and your side failed to convince a huge section of society.

Comparing that democratic decision to wartime Japan where opponents to the government were imprisoned or even killed is pretty shocking really. It shows a complete lack of belief in the democratic system.

No, I am simply saying that legality =/= objective morality. Slavery in the US was legal, and it didn't make in objectively moral. Just because something is democratically elected (or via a constitutional republic) does not mean it is moral.

Yes, Ireland came to a consensus. It doesn't automatically mean the consensus was objectively moral.

I am not making the argument that "you are wrong because I say so"; on the contrary. I explained very clearly why killing an innocent unborn human is no different to killing an innocent born human. The actions are the same. The only difference is surrounding the circumstances behind the justification of taking an innocent human beings life; which abortion does not rationally do.

Really you just need to make a better argument than "you're all immoral murderers". Even if that's what you think.

Another strawman. I never once said abortion is murder. Abortion is only murder when it is illegal. Right now abortion is intentional homicide; but it isn't murder.

The meaning of words is important.