So, the rest of abortion should be okay because of the <0.5% of cases?
Nope, that certainly does not follow. But if someone says that "abortion should be prohibited in all cases", then surely I get to point out that this is not good, at least in my opinion.
What if there's an allowance for rape/incest/life of mother like is allowed pretty much anywhere?
Then I would not call the position morally bankrupt.
You're using an emotional, straw-man argument to justify baby murder.
If the guy calls me 'morally bankrupt' for supporting first-trimester abortions, then surely I get to call him the same for supporting inflicting such massive trauma on some poor 12-year-old girl. Fair is fair.
You'd have a point if MargarineMongoose had said that at all. You can't argue the general concept of abortion for your side of the argument, but then apply the fringe cases to the other side.
Then I would not call the position morally bankrupt
That is literally the case in most places even where it's "banned" to one extent or another, but you made the point anyway.
I get to call him the same for supporting inflicting such massive trauma on some poor 12-year-old girl
And if you'd been arguing the fringe cases rather than the general concept, you'd be right. Instead, you took great pride in erecting a straw puppet of "things he never said" and knocking it down. Even if that is his opinion, the point stands that the baby is also innocent along with the victim, but that's another argument entirely.
Nope, that certainly does not follow. But if someone says that "abortion should be prohibited in all cases", then surely I get to point out that this is not good, at least in my opinion.
Then I would not call the position morally bankrupt.
If the guy calls me 'morally bankrupt' for supporting first-trimester abortions, then surely I get to call him the same for supporting inflicting such massive trauma on some poor 12-year-old girl. Fair is fair.
You'd have a point if MargarineMongoose had said that at all. You can't argue the general concept of abortion for your side of the argument, but then apply the fringe cases to the other side.
That is literally the case in most places even where it's "banned" to one extent or another, but you made the point anyway.
And if you'd been arguing the fringe cases rather than the general concept, you'd be right. Instead, you took great pride in erecting a straw puppet of "things he never said" and knocking it down. Even if that is his opinion, the point stands that the baby is also innocent along with the victim, but that's another argument entirely.