Dubocrats

I've gone on at length elsewhere about why abortion isn't murder.

A 5 conservative Supreme Court justice majority doesn't even agree with that viewpoint. I'm actually not sure if a single one of them would.

It’s not legal murder. The Supreme Court says it isn’t.

Appeal to Authority is not a proper fallacy to invoke when discussing the opinions of experts. SCOTUS are better authorities on constitutional issues, and difficult questions of life and death, than you and I are. The country’s best, in fact.

We also live in a democracy — or Republic as I’m sure you’d say — and so the opinions of Americans matter. And a large majority of Americans do not believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, and that’s been steady for quite some time.

You can repeat slogans like “abortion is murder” and “life begins at conception” until you are blue in the face, but most people do not believe you.

I think it is a fair assumption that those who believe abortion is murder also believe in "abortion (being) illegal in all circumstances." Which is the question the Gallup Poll I cited asked. Gallup did not ask, "Is abortion murder?" So: I am not moving the goalposts in an effort to appeal to popularity. I am citing my source accurately.

If you want to find and cite me a poll that instead asks the American people, "Is abortion murder?" then I bet you could. Perhaps asking the question that way produces a different result!

But I suspect you aren't truly interested in that question either, because it appears -- to put this as succinctly as possible -- that you don't care what people think.

Abortion is a constitutional issue. Cases are litigated over it all the time, and they focus on the 14th Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

On the contrary, KylieFan's arguments are well thought out and have a basis in reality. Whereas yours have nothing but projection. You seem to only believe in authority of the constitution when it suits you, and think it is woefully under representative when it doesn't. You claim to not care what people think, yet you cannot help but to stand up to people who have a different perspective. There is nothing inherently wrong with challenging different perspectives. Intellectuals rely on it, otherwise we'd still think the Earth was flat.

Oh, am I not allowed to contribute to meme threads? I am a fan of KylieFan_89's memes. You just so happened to be here. Predictable. Actually, that was KylieFan's interpretation. I'm delighted to hear otherwise.

I believe we're keeping each other company. That's how company works. Well, not not commercial industries. Speaking of which, what is your field of expertise? I've dabbled in this and that. Legal work, carpentry, and computers. My typing skills are nothing to boast about but they're higher than average which gets you a lot of potential work even at my age. Easier on the bones and muscles as they slowly give out despite whatever exercise or supplemental regiment you do to keep yourself healthy.

I understand that you can't answer a simple question which appears to completely destroy your chain of argument.

If we're not meant to appeal to authority but morality then what is the source of morality?

Morality is subjective and not an absolute. If you only define murder as the purposeful termination of human life then it absolutely can be determined by vote, popular or otherwise. There is a precedent with executions after all. In fact, the constitution condones the taking of human life to anyone branded traitors. That's not to say abortion is murder however. Nor is it wise to begin determining when the constitution protects human life at conception.

There are all kinds of legal entanglements that come with making abortion illegal. Shall I go on or would you rather insult me?

If morality is factually an absolute, then what is your source?

Take these logically perfect, airtight, never-before-heard arguments straight to the U.S. Supreme Court and get them to immediately end this terrible and ongoing injustice foisted upon us by a deluded democratic majority.

I'm sure they'll see it your way!

Then what should you appeal to? Morality? From what source?

You've finally admitted SCOTUS determines whether an act is "legal" or not (vs. "abortion is legal murder" above)! We're getting somewhere.

The democratic majority elected the presidents -- with the exception of those two presidents in recent history chosen by the Electoral College against popular vote! -- who appointed the justices.

A distinction without much of a difference. The SCOTUS justices, even the conservative ones, reflect the views of the majority of the country on this. Despite even the counter-majoritarian workings of the Electoral College, which is not quite counter-majoritarian enough to protect the "lives" of fetuses against the 78% of the population who does not favor abortion to be restricted in all circumstances.

The Republican Party talks a big game on abortion, and will keep lobbying for restrictions here and there, but in the end is not going to ban it. The issue is just too good of a vote-getter, and actually banning it once and for all would provoke too great of a backlash.

By the way, is this one of those issues you mentioned you criticized the Republican Party for?

If so, then you're criticizing the GOP from the right and are therefore even crazier than the party as a whole has become.

Apparently, Timber1972 is running scared when I asked him the source of his morality. Give it a shot, KylieFan. Maybe then he will stop trolling you.

"So you say. That you didn't understand is the fault of the reader, not the writer."

Rather than state clarity, you continue to attribute blame, so I highly doubt you actually care about clarity or your point being taken. Your point meaning... "Abortion is murder because people I agree with tell me so."

"Comparing 'gun laws' to abortion is fallacious."

Yet you constantly compare many things to prove your points, so it's hypocritical to dismiss the comparison between guns and abortion as pure fallacy.

"You almost certainly won't...but if it's repeated, maybe eventually something will stick."

That sounds an awful like: “And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth."

"You are not his mouthpiece. Come up with your own talking points, rather than being used as someone else's puppet."

So you can't answer a simple question. Morality is subjective. End of story.

SOCTUS only seem able to determine if something is legal if it subscribes to your morality.

I wonder where you get that from? Yourself? That's admirable, but that means morality is subjective.

I catch your meaning now. When you said "abortion is legal murder," I thought you were saying abortion was already murder by legal definition (but not commonly recognized as such), and that you were preparing to offer some argument that SCOTUS was wrong from a legal standpoint.

If you'd instead said, "Abortion is legalized murder," I would have caught your meaning the first time. Which is essentially an opinion-based critique of the fact that abortion is legal.

So, you do in fact agree that SCOTUS determines what is legal. Okay.

As for legal vs. moral, you're certainly allowed to have your own opinions on what is moral, despite what the laws say. As am I. Example: I don't think all of our gun laws are moral, necessarily. I recognize that places me on the opposite side of some American laws as they currently exist on the books, but places me in line with laws of other countries that practice more vigorous gun control.

I'd echo Strangelove's challenge to you: If "morality is, in fact, absolute," surely someone has written it down somewhere by now?

If the popular vote doesn't matter then why is it counted? The process is entirely relevant as it is a part of the checks and balance to ensure that the will of the republic reflect the will of the people; otherwise the republic could potentially be compromised. If the popular vote never reflected the electorate, I could see merit in it's dismissal of it being irrelevant.

I really do want to know the source of your morality.

Dude, I know how the Electoral College works and that as a technical matter it chooses the President every time. You are not educating me on anything.

But when the Electoral College chooses a president that matches the popular vote winner (i.e. "democratic majority"), which is most of the time, it is redundant and is not actually doing any counter-majoritarian work.

I also know other presidents in U.S. history have been chosen by the Electoral College against the popular vote. That's why I specified "recent" history. As I sit here, I have no opinion on Hayes and Quincy Adams and what our country would have been like had the popular vote winner won instead.

You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone.

I don't think the meme was directed at you either yet you still replied. Have we now established your obvious hypocrisy? Good.

So, tell me. If morality is factually an absolute, what is your source?

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/12/29/security-guards-afghan-warlords-mass-civilian-casualties/2675795001/

our soldiers are like democrats. better at killing children instead of terrorists