Dasein/dasein
"But which you construe to ever and always be rational as a result of your God-given "intuitive" "I just know" grasp of these things."
Let's review...
You wanted to know if new information & experiences could change my mind.
I said 'yes with the proviso information, knowledge, and those who convey either, none are created equal. So, not any or every bit of new information, knowledge, nor every conveyor of either, is worth listening to. Also, that new information or knowledge has to trump an aggregate of old, tested, information and knowledge. A popinjay with the latest new & shiny won't be accepted just becuz he or his wares are new' and 'I'll assess it, see if it works, if it fits, or if it over-turns'.
My words, your interpretation: they don't match.
"those on the other side of the political spectrum have their own "before not a human person, after a human person" assessments."
There are folks in-forum who say a baby is not a person till it's born and takes its first breath. Others say personhood is only a legal/social status, one that must be bestowed. Neither position is 'reasonable'. Both include possibilities their proponents refuse to consider. Let's you and I consider those possibilities and those embedded in your (and Mary's) position below (insofar as you, or she, have one).
"please note how the points I raise there are not applicable to you."
"I believe what many would construe to be two seemingly conflicting [even contradictory] things:
1] that aborting a human fetus is the killing of an innocent human being
2] that women should be afforded full legal rights to choose abortion"
It's morally permissible to end a pregnancy that demonstrably threatens the woman's life. It's morally permissible to end a pregnancy a woman did not, in word or action, consent to. Abortion for any other reason is murder (an unjust, immoral, killing).
"Abortion then is a human tragedy in my view precisely because, like so many other moral conflagrations, it necessarily involves a conflict of legitimate rights."
Mary had sex of her own volition with John. They consented to the probable consequence. She reneged. She enabled the murder of her kid. So, let's take a head count: Mary wanted Junior murdered, John consented to the murder, you were too spineless to object to the murder, a doctor and at least one nurse committed the murder...that's four of you, right offa the top of my head. So, yes, it's a tragedy, just not as you think it is.
"In my view, moral dogmas are basically interchangable when expressed as sets of essential [universal] convictions."
So: the (a)morality that dictates man (any man, every man) is meat, and it's A-OK to kill him, slave him, rape him, that, to you, is equivalent to, or interchangeable with, the morality that sez a man is a person with a natural right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. The first, as it is, without interpretation, sanctions a man, any man, every man, being used as a commodity. The second, as it stands, without interpretation, denies such sanction. And, to you, these radically different views of, and approaches to, man, they're interchangeable. Both are valid. You'd have a hard time pickin' one over the other.
"Indeed, as some note, that was the beauty of Roe v. Wade here in America. A "demcocracy and the rule of law" approach to a moral conflagration."
R v W was a bad court ruling. There was nuthin' democratic about it. Let's be truly democratic and let The People decide. Let's have a national vote on it. One man-one vote.
"Okay, so the state, the government has the God-given intuitive right to force the woman to give birth?"
The State has, potentially, the power to force women to give birth or to abort. The State, more accurately, the folks who comprise it, have no right to do either.
So: the persons responsible, by way of a consensual act, for one person (baby) being inside another (mother) are the consenting parties, the man (father) and the woman (mother). They created a person. They're responsible for him.
"Again, the only reason you can make up your mind, henry, is becasue existentially you took a leap of faith to the Deist God instead of one of these...One True Paths and then with absolutely no definitive demonstrable proof of His existence, you came to believe "in your head" that He created the universe -- the multiverse? -- and provided you with the "intuitive" capacity to "just know" that what you post here reflects the optimal truth."
No, I can make up mind about these matters becuz I recognize every person around me has, as I do, as you do, a natural right to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property. I can make up my mind becuz the universality of natural rights lends itself to man being sumthin' other than, more than, meat which, in turn lends itself to man being sumthin' other than, more than, a meaningless event.
"Pick one:"
Okay:
-----
nihilism
"when these items and conveyances become newsworthy in the manner in which guns often are, you can bring them to our attention"
It doesn't matter if it's newsworthy. What matters: if a person has done no wrong with his property, you have no claim to it. What matters: if 99 do wrong with their property, and the 100th does not, you have no claim to the 100th's.
"If someone does not share his own "general description intellectual contraption" assessment of life, liberty and property they are perforce flat out wrong and immoral."
Anyone who sez a person, any person, every person, does not have a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property is wrong, wrong-headed, immoral.
"Over and again, I note the arguments of those who are opposed to the buying and selling of grenades, bazookas, artillery pieces, RPGs, IEDs, claymore mines and chemical and biological weapons in their community."
Yes, these folks believe they can take property away from other folks becuz of what those others might do with their property. They believe themselves justified to take property they feel might hurt them. Like I said: guilty till proven innocent.
"transgenders you argue that they have a "natural right" to wear dresses and self-mutilate"
They have a right to do with themselves, and only themselves, as they like. What they, and you, object to is the 'and only themselves' part.
-----
I cut out so much of the same garbage from both of your posts it seemed advisable to merge what was left (the truly recyclable stuff).