Abortion is ethically justifiable

There is an old saying in politics: 'never answer the question you were asked, answer the question you WISH you were asked'. Solarman, I think you have done exactly this. Let's review the topic: 'abortion is ethically justifiable'. Let's also review my opening argument, which usually sets the tone for a debate. I argued: 1. that we should treat an entity like what it is, not like what it will become. Since a fetus is not a person, it should not have the rights of one. 2. Abortion can be justified even if it is a person, as per the Thomson example (recall that you have failed to refute this argument at any point) 3. If abortion is wrong, then sex is also murder (again, the only refutation was you misunderstanding the argument in round 2) With that in mind, you last post is almost entirely irrelevant. Most of it concerns what you perceive to be the horrors of promiscuous sex. That opinion is largely due to outdated social morays and I vehemently disagree that consensual pleasure-seeking can be morally wrong (perhaps unwise, but certainly not immoral), but even if you're right, this is not the debate you signed on for, but is another debate entirely. One could, for example, be in a marriage and still face the decision concerning abortion or, abortion could be an issue without sex at all: women could inject semen into themselves. Granted, both cases are unlikely, but my point is that abortion and sexual promiscuity are indeed separate issues. If I wanted to talk about sexual ethics, I would have created a topic to discuss this. But, beyond that, you never actually give any reason to think that consensual uncommitted sex is wrong all you say is "Sex will be treated as MUCH more serious, which is SHOULD BE. As a MAN, you should NOT have sex with any woman who you are not committed to and prepared to make a baby." So, for this argument to work, you must defend that uncommitted, consensual sex is wrong and that this is not intimately connected to abortion that all abortions result from theses practices. Now, you continue your post with some suggestions on your own abortion policy. I want to bring back some of my arguments on the futility of discussing this: "Under this light, your comments about adoption are not relevant. If the fetus isn't a person, and if it is not incumbent on women to carry it, the adoption doesn't matter." -- kvaughan round 2 "the birth mother should be incentivized (sic) to keep the baby (25-30K$) and this should be paid by the adoptive parents" RUNNING THEME: this argument depends on the status of the fetus. If it's a person then sure, if not, then why provide an incentive?" --Kvaughan round 3 "5) ADOPTION: I addressed this above. If a fetus is a person then incentives and adoption are decent point, if not, there's no reason to provide incentives (not to mention this is a politics, not ethics argument) and there's no reason to ask women to carry the baby for 9 months." -- kvaughan round 3 my point is this, I have addressed this point time and time again and you have not responded. We have to decide what a fetus is first, and rather or not it's ok to abort it. Then, and only then, can we have a discussion about what should be done in regards to pregnant women. This points to what seems to be the fundamental element of your 'strategy': become a moving target. In round 1, you argued that life begins at conception, that people want to adopt, etc, all while completely ignoring my opening post. In round 2, you randomly decide to confront my opening argument, ask me to address some points you made etc. now in round 3, you've decided to completely ignore all the other lines of argument and go for this sexual promiscuity argument which I've already addressed. In fact, in this round you completely ignore a ton of incredible arguments. I was particularly fond of my Hippocratic oath argument. So, here's what I want from you. To win this debate (or convince me in any way) I need some discussion the points I presented in my opening statement. Why should I think a fetus is a person? Why should a women be forced to carry a child for 9 months when the Thomson analogy contradicts this? And, if abortion is wrong, why isn't sex wrong. I chose these arguments for a reason -- they crush the pro-life position. At this point I assume you failed to address them because of how good they are or because you have nothing to say against them. This is annoying because you did this is round 1 and recovered for round 2. Maybe round 4 will be better.