Then I would recommend a better imagination, or a better dictionary.
The previous author already defined brutality as a necessary component of late-stage abortions to his world-view. I would recommend a course in basic reading or perhaps being more tolerant to the world-views of others
One cannot frame an argument for tolerance of one's own views based on the intolerance of the views of others.
Emotion is a hallmark of sentimentality and serves no purpose in the realm of morality. Your emotional response to an issue like this serves not one whit in ethical questions concerning the issue.
Aristotle's ethical premise of Eudaimonia was based squarely on the premise of happieness. That ethics consists of our experiences in life and our responses to them. We should aim for 'kalos' (I believe it's beauty, harmony, or 'pleasant' or something like that). Both Aristotle and Plato tread 'thumos' or the cause to anger as a vital, positive, and necessary part of their ethical structures. Admittedly, Aristotle doesn't regard this as being properly an 'emotion', and sees virtue in following the rational. Hedonism, for instance, was the maximisation of pleasure as an ethical standpoint.
The typical undergraduate philosophy class response is "emotion is the enemy of rationality". Look further and you'll see it is impossible to act as a purely rational actor. It is, however, the emotional content of an ethical system that lead to some of its triumphs. Emotions serve two purposes; two evaluate a given ethical standpoint, and to allow the influencing of others through joint subjective truths.
In terms of modern theoretical approach, I quite favour consequentialism - that the morality of an action is determined by its outcomes, the traditional 'ends justify the means' approach. What are the ends? They could be anything. Even... *gasp*... happiness!
Any notion of a rule-making system based on the prevention of suffering is tied to an empathetic regard to the subject. You can frame an entire justification for human rights on the principle of preventing suffering.
I can't understand the appeal of critical theoretical approaches to morality and ethics, as some authors suggest that reality itself is in doubt, and that rationalism is therefore irrelevent, leaving us only
My view on this is that my emotions and 'gut reactions' to issues are generally more persuasive to me than the cold 'truth' of logic. Give me data or give me death.
Your broad and sweeping generalisations are unbeckoming. Your
concept of ethics has no room for the emotions. That does not mean that ethics as a whole cannot.
I'm asking this question because as far as I can tell, there is no real objective reason that it should be illegal. Every single position has been based on morality and opinion of 'when life begins'. If you're not going to accept my definition of 'when life begins', I would like to know why I should accept yours. Just throwing that out there. :)
Because Roe's appeal was moot. She had already given birth at the time it occured. Given that this effectively changed the law, the change should be undone by a virtue of being counter to the general principles of the rule of law
Edit: My grave concern in the whole abortion debate in the US is that it's law made by judges. Yes, they're interpreting the constitution, but that's a dark art that could go either way. I think it should be replaced with 'proper' law, made be elected representatives, just as the US constitution envisages.
My personal bias on this? I think it's a deeply complex question and not one that you can draw broad sweeping statements about. It therefore doesn't lend itself well to the language of a 'right'. Yes, I'm happy on my fence here.