Attila wrote:

There is no 'fundamental rightness.'

What, then, is your explanation for laws against
assault and murder, for example?

Society has decided such actions are against the good order and
discipline needed for a successfully functioning and health society.
They are therefore prohibited.

Do you base
them on something other than a fundamental right
to life?

Since no one has ever been able to refer me to any 'right to life' so
I can see the provisions, what it includes, how it is enforced, and so
forth I consider referring to any such 'right' as completely useless.

Since you hold everything to be based only on the
decision of the society, you would evidently have
no basis for an objection if a sovereign majority
decided to dispose of disliked minorities in
death camps, for example.

The abortion argument itself is based
on a concept of a fundamental right of a woman
over her own body, or do you say this does not exist?

Nope. That right is in the Constitution according to the only people
who are qualified to make such determinations.

If that right is nowhere but merely in the
Constitution, it would apparently cease to exist
if it were removed from the Constitution.

Mark Sebree wrote:

But now you are including another person,

No, I am not. An embryo or fetus is not a human being, and thus is not
a person.

I meant the abortionist, not the embryo.

And the doctor is doing the job that he was trained to do, and
preforming a procedure that the woman has request.

The doctor cannot use the argument that he has a
right to remove the embryo on the ground that he
has a sovereign right over his own body, because
his own body is not involved.

Talk about the kettle calling the pot black!

You are the one that is using terms that are meant to cloud the issue,
terms that are inexact and emotionally charged. Not me.

That's just your description. 'Emotionally charged' has
become merely an automatic, often used, cliched slogan.

That is why she does not ask you, and instead she goes to a competant
professional trained in the proper procedures.

This
also applies to other people collectively, which means
to society,

which is made up of people that have different opinions from you.

And of people who have the same opinion.

Which means that you do not speak for anyone but yourself.

So now there is no abortion debate at all?

Do you think you have a right to define what 'caring'
means for everybody?

No. And neither do you. However, your agenda will bring harm and
suffering to millions of women. Hardly a caring position.

Do you say that,if you can't throw
an embryo in the garbage, you are not a 'caring' person?

Actually, if you want to force the woman to suffer, or else force her
to needlessly risk infection, sterility, and death from self-abortions
or abortion performed by untrained people, then you are not a very
caring person.

She could simply continue the pregnancy until birth
and then hand the baby over for adoption.

It is
noticeable that you talk about 'caring' but never
say a single positive word about an embryo, as if
an embryo was not something that could ever develop
into a particular, individual human being, as it
certainly would.

More properly called an embryo or fetus by those that are concerned
with the facts, rather than clouding the waters.

Another example of the kettle calling the pot black.

Not at all. Just telling you the proper terminology.

The terminology that suits you you call 'proper'. So
much for that!

Who are you to define the status of an embryo for all
people,

I do not. The medical profession does. And "embryo" in humans is
defined as being from implantation to approximately 8 or 9 weeks of
gestation.

and to declare what is and is not the
significance of a child before and after birth, as if
there should be no view but yours?

There is no child before birth. And a person is defined by law as
existing starting at birth.

Tell me another - as if a real child can be simply
'defined away' by particular human beings in order
to not be a child any more at their convenience.
Law is an expression only of the human will and
not an infallible manifestation of reality.

What child? There is no child until birth.

Who says? You?

No. The law. Check your own state laws for the definitions of a
person and a child.

Another laughable remark - as if the state originally designed
and created the person and the child from the beginning
and is thus revealing to us the true secrets of its creation!
Definitions by humans don't create reality.

The women that want abortions pay for them themselves now. Therefore,
you should have no problem with that. And since abortion is legal, it
is not a crime by definition, your delusions notwithstanding.

It is a crime in its essence,

and humans defining
it out of existence is really merely an impotent
fallacy on their part.