atlantabiolab said:
No. Please show us where experience is conditional for moral reasoning. So without experience in battle or fighting, a man cannot make the moral judgement to know when he must fight to protect life and property? Is this the type of reasoning used by minority advocates to pass laws preferring said minority, arguing that the majority cannot "understand the 'black, gay, latino, disabled, etc.' experience"?
Experience is not conditional for reasoning, it is only a tool for reasoning, but man does not have to reason at all. There are numerous cases in which it can be shown that experience does not correlate with reasoning. Politics is a great example.
I guess so are questions of morality, hence your attempt to make this an issue of morality and not personal rights.
This is the EXACT reason I said:
"Is it possible I just might be in a better position than you..."
The "tools" I have at my disposal for reasoning are better. Period. I have more information than you and you and you and you, and yes, just about ANYONE here. And because it wasn't drilled into my head since childhood by the nuns much like Muslim schoolchildren learn that Jews drink virgin Arab blood, I don't carry this inherent bias. My point is, don't even bother to argue the FACTS of this with me.
I am not making a MORAL decision or argument. Your argument is based entirely on what you think is morally right and what is morally wrong and then IMPOSING your moral beliefs on someone else. My experience
is relevant because my arguments are based on facts that I have witnessed and participated in ranging from indications for abortion to outcomes from abortions as well as live births. My observations are scientific as any piece-of-shit electropheresis gel you run in the lab, nerd-boy. My statements on abortion are not based on my moral beliefs, they are based on medical outcomes.
As for the greatest hippocracy of all:
The first two [rape, incest] are non-consentual therefore the woman has the law on her side to argue for the procedure, but she would have to prove her case, since this is a claim that societal laws have been violated and another is being implicated as being a criminal. I'm sure you can see how allowing this argument non-chalantly opens the flood gates to erroneous charges.
So this "innocent life"
can be snuffed depending on the situation that caused it???? Boy your moral compass must have just landed on the magnetic South Pole!!!!! Or is that just another way to appease the masses so you can recruit more followers into your camp?
I already gave you the real definition. For a supposed doctor, your's was pathetic.
Kudos on pulling up that tired old quote from U Penn's parasitology department and your local Right-to-life branch. Never heard that one before, LOL. Amazing how every other definition (mine was from Webster's, since most arguing this point don't read "scientific" journals and we're talking public opinion here) does not include that first line regarding "different species." In fact, that very definition you so eloquently quoted from the "Stop Abortin Now! website" is about the only one that inserts that interspecies condition. Just because a single, pro-life author at U. Penn says it's so doesn't override the basic, colloquial definition.
Regardless of all this, it's merely a single WORD, and that word is not the be-all, end-all of this debate. More important words would be "self determination" and "personal rights" which are, after all the basic tenets that this country was based on. Got any biased definitions for those?
Stuff like "separation of church and state" were intended to prevent this entire argument. The government needs to stay out of abortion and other similar issues because the "moral high ground" on this debate is based on religious ideology, not factual medical or scientific evidence.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
.jpg "Research Chemical Sciences")
.png "Research Chemical Sciences")
