No, please stay.
I agree with BMS: please stay!Your question doesn't even remotely help anyone understand what abortion is.
By the way, if anyone is posting to this forum without understanding what abortion is, they should probably just delete their own account...
If she had said "I wish you had died by cancer, car accident, plane crash, shooting, accident, etc," um--yeah I would.Because you chose a very, very specific way of saying "I wish you were dead".
If she had said "I wish that you had died by X", would you be against X, no matter what it is?
Quite frankly, I do not think abortion supporters know what they are saying. I have yet to see an abortion supporter make a coherent argument for abortion.So what is your answer to the question on the other thread?
An acorn is the oak tree at its seed stage. You are saying it isnt, right?
Of course I would not be against cars!"If your mother said "I wish you had been hit by a car" would you be hurt?
Interesting that you mention shootings, because that was one of the examples I would have gone with to make my point -If she had said "I wish you had died by cancer, car accident, plane crash, shooting, accident, etc," um--yeah I would.
I am against cancer, car accidents, plane crashes, shootings, accidents, disease, as much as I am against abortion. I am against anything that seeks to take the like of an innocent human being.
Here it is:Quite frankly, I do not think abortion supporters know what they are saying. I have yet to see an abortion supporter make a coherent argument for abortion.
Another ridiculous, ludicrous argument. Sir, do you realize your arguments just keep getting more and more ridiculous the longer you debate this? You might want to consider going back to the JV forums. It is clear you aren't up for varsity level debate.Interesting that you mention shootings, because that was one of the examples I would have gone with to make my point -
if some gun-toting 2nd Amendment supporter mother had told them
"I wish you'd been shot as a child"
would they then be against the 2nd Amendment? The choice to own guns being available?
An insult?It isn't pro-lifers who don't understand what abortion is. Pro-lifers are pro-life precisely becasue they understand what abortion is.
If having an opinion different from yours constitutes me not understanding the subject, then you don't understand Christianity.It is abortion supporters (most) who do not know what abortion is. They are the ones who constantly conflate abortion with things like "choice" "empowerment" "health care" "freedom" etc.
If we weren't dealing with truth, you would be right.Here it is:
in my opinion, the right of a woman not to carry an unborn child should trump the right of said unborn child to live inside her.
Yes, it's an opinion.
But so is the reverse - it's opinion vs opinion, with nothing to settle the debate objectively.
Said gun was available to said criminal because of the 2nd Amendment - do you not wonder why homicide rates are so much higher in countries where guns are legal?When someone uses a gun to commit a crime, one is not using the gun OR exercising the second amendment for the purposes for which the gun and the second amendment exist.
Hilarious - "we need the 2nd Amendment so we can defend ourselves from all the criminals that have guns because of the 2nd Amendment!"Guns are for three purposes: 1) self defense of life, limb, and loved ones, 2) sport, 3) hunting. This is why the second amendment exists also.
Given the firearms homicide rate in the US compared with other nations, you either have a lot more "problematic" people per capita... or the 2nd Amendment is the cause.You are so typical of liberal abortion supporters in that whenever people commit crimes with guns, you think the gun, not the person is the problem, you think the second amendment, not the person is the problem.
Then prove it.If we weren't dealing with truth, you would be right.
But this debate, sir isn't just a matter of personal taste. The debate about abortion isn't just a debate over "I like Chocolate, you like Vanilla" or "My favorite color is Blue, you hate Blue but love Red."
When it comes to the question or abortion, someone is right and someone is wrong. This is not just opinion.
Well, if you reframe abortion as "choice" etc, then, it isn't just that you have a different opinion from me, it is that you do not know what abortion is. Abortion isn't choice.An insult?
If having an opinion different from yours constitutes me not understanding the subject, then you don't understand Christianity.
So because people misuse and abuse a right, we need to take rights away. Is that your logic? Shall we take driving privileges away from everyone since some people drive irresponsibly? Funny thing with liberals: they only want to take rights away when they do not like the right in question. They love the right of free speech as long as people exercise that right to promote liberal causes and liberalism. As soon as conservatives start using the right, liberals want to shut it down. Liberals hate the right to keep and bear arms, so they want to take it away, despite it being a constitutional right. Liberals LOVE abortion so even though the constitution says nothing about abortion, they will project the right into the constitution and then claim it is not only a constitutional right, but a divine right!Said gun was available to said criminal because of the 2nd Amendment - do you not wonder why homicide rates are so much higher in countries where guns are legal?
It's because the legality of guns caused them to proliferate.
Hilarious - "we need the 2nd Amendment so we can defend ourselves from all the criminals that have guns because of the 2nd Amendment!"
Given the firearms homicide rate in the US compared with other nations, you either have a lot more "problematic" people per capita... or the 2nd Amendment is the cause.
The reason we do not elevate rights of the woman over than of the rights of the unborn is because both people are human lives. When it comes to human life, there is no one person who has more rights than others. We are all equal. There is no one person who is more important or more vital than someone else. The minute you start with the claim that some people are more important than others, and some are more deserving of rights than others, you go down the road Hitler went down.Then prove it.
Prove that you are objectively correct to elevate the rights of the unborn over the rights of the pregnant woman.
"We" being anti-abortioners, I take it.The reason we do not elevate rights of the woman over than of the rights of the unborn is because both people are human lives.
If you are opposed to abortion, that is not true - the unborn not only has a right to life, but a right to live inside another person.When it comes to human life, there is no one person who has more rights than others.
A poorly disguised slippery slope fallacy - my lack of objection to women abortion their own pregnancies does not entail anything else.The minute you start with the claim that some people are more important than others, and some are more deserving of rights than others, you go down the road Hitler went down.
It's a bit more than that. It takes two to tango, and too often a woman's partner is either nowhere to be found, and has therefore shirked their responsibility, or they have no say in the matter to begin with. Either way, the underlying problem is making bad decisions. It starts with being with irresponsible, flaky people, then deciding to have sex with them, then deciding to murder their offspring; one bad decision after another.When a woman gets an unwanted pregnancy, the problem is not the pregnancy, sir. The problem is with irresponsible, indiscriminate sex.
False. See above, and note that condoning fornication is one of the most effective paths to damnation according to both Christ and Paul. God did not give humanity the right to sin. Humanity has been deceived into believing we have these rights by the father of lies, Satan himself.Now, women certainly have the right to choose to have sex any time they want with whoever they want.
Women can be quite discriminating in who they choose to have sex with. That's not the problem. The problem is in choosing to have sex when one doesn't intend to get pregnant in the first place. This is confusion.But in such a case, if a woman gets pregnant, the problem is that the woman choose to have indiscriminate sex.
If someone does not want to follow God's will, that is why there is birth control.If a woman does not want to be abstinent, that is why there is birth control.
That is clearly how they work it though. That's clearly been the case since Roe v. Wade.Abortion supporters what choice but they don't want responsibility. That isn't how it works.
And they have accepted the consequences by opting to murder unborn human beings.You cannot have choice without responsibility. You cannot have choice without consequences. If abortion supporters want choice, then they have to be willing to face the consequences of said choice.
Where did I say I wanted it taken away? I am in the UK - this doesn't really affect me.Sir: if you think we cannot take the right of abortion away from women becasue that right is enshrined somewhere in the constitution, somehow, why do we get to take away the right to keep and bear arms, which IS EXPLICITLY in the Constitution?
Yes - "severely punish" all those school shooters. That will bring their victims back to life and deter other school shooters!How about we just ensure that people who misuse and abuse rights--like the right to keep and bear arms--are severely punished?
Why do so many criminals have access to guns...?The cause of the problem is NOT the second amendment, the cause of the problem is criminals.
There being no real way to curb what you call "irrespsonsible sex" - abstinence-only education actually makes things worse, for example - treating the "symptoms" is all we can do.You know--you just gave me insight now into why liberals think pregnancy, rather than irresponsible sex is the problem, and why they would think abortion is the solution to the problem of irresponsible sex. Liberals conflate SYMPTOMS of the problem with the problem itself. Liberals think treating the SYMPTOM of the problem is as good as treating the problem itself.
Most certainly genocide, especially when one considers the over 50 million dead since Roe.And certainly not genocide.
Perhaps if you paid more attention to the actual meaning of words, this wouldn't be such a problem.So, no objective facts, but more opinions, and a fallacy.
Because criminals don't follow gun laws to begin with. Removing guns from law abiding citizens isn't equivalent to removing them from criminals. Laws cannot keep guns out of the hands of the criminal element. If that were the case, then convicted felons would not be shooting up neighborhoods, or executing their girlfriends and her children.Why do so many criminals have access to guns...?
They make it easier to stop them as well.Guns sure make things easier for them.
There are a lot of unwanted people in this world as well, perhaps we would include eliminating them as a last resort as well, no?For the record, I am all for reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. It's just that I include abortion as a last-resort means to do so.