Relationships are psych interviews.

Do you believe in abortion?

do you mean am i pro-choice?

Yes, pro "choice."

well firstly i'm flattered that my opinion is that important to you. so i'll tell you, as this seems a very important question, how i'm thinking. who has more of a right to make the choice than the people involved? no one who's making their decision from a religious basis, obviously, since that's a personal choice no more valid than those of the people involved. no one from a legal basis since Americans don't have rights by law until they're born. if someone wants to claim the right to choose by a moral basis, how would they justify the morality of their position? when does the morality of society outweigh the morality of individuals? conventionally the argument has been that it may do so when actions impact the rights of others. this leads to the question of when a person becomes a person and has rights. can that question be answered truthfully from any basis? definitively, certainly, but truthfully? i hope this helps you in your struggle.

Well, are YOU pro choice? As in, pro abortion?

i'm not in a situation of having to make the choice, and it's not my business to take a position on someone else's choice. do as you think best and i won't cause any problems for you.

Yes, you are taking a position by "not" taking a position. By not doing anything at all, you are helping the pro choice result, which is abortion. By saying "it is your choice" you are pro-abortion.

If you were a German in Germany, during WWII, and you said to a Nazi who asked if it was wrong to kill Jews: "I am not involved in the decision, so I can't say whether it is right or wrong."
What you are doing is subjectifying, object morality. You may or may not think that it is wrong to kill Jews, but you don't want to get involved in the other German's business?

Similarly, you are saying: "I may or may not like abortion, but it's up to you because it is your choice."

Do you see how dangerous this position is?

i see that you like to change the issue by drawing a flawed analogy. killing innocent people is wrong, even if it's legal. what makes abortion fundamentally different is that there's a question as to when a fertilized egg becomes a person. i was trying to point you to an important moment of reflection: not everyone will come to the same answer on this question, so who gets to decide?

i think you like to argue, which is fine, but it's usually foolish to assume that you have the upper hand because you're either objectively right, morally superior, or just better at arguing. none of those criteria hold in the present argument. i strongly recommend thinking over what i said and then asking yourself how you can win an argument over something that has no objective right answer.

Killing people has no objective right answer?

Do you believe in "the science"? Any embryology textbook and embryologist will say that human life begins at conception...Meaning a human being that you are terminating. How is that not murder?

if i was being paid to make you a better arguer, i would.

Alright, I see how it is. You know you have been caught in an argument that you don't understand how to get out of, so you are reverting to adhominem.

i have a lot of these conversations. i respond until i see whether the other person has an interesting new point or they just like to argue one point of view. now that you've made that clear, you'll have to find someone else to bother.

Why aren't you addressing my arguments?