How would you feel?

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.
I absolutely do, and nothing you've written in this thread has shown otherwise.

Abortion isn't choice.
Of course not. Abortion is abortion - which happens to be A legal choice of ways to handle/treat a pregnancy. It also should remain a medical procedure people can choose to have performed.
 
I absolutely do, and nothing you've written in this thread has shown otherwise.


Of course not. Abortion is abortion - which happens to be A legal choice of ways to handle/treat a pregnancy. It also should remain a medical procedure people can choose to have performed.
What it boils down to is that killing an unborn human being is legal or illegal when I say it is which is simply to spotlight how truly capricious and incoherent the law really is.

For example, a pregnant woman on her way to see her doctor for a routine checkup on the progress of her pregnancy is hit by a negligent driver killing her unborn baby. The negligent driver is now probably going to be accused, tried, and probably convicted of negligent vehicular homicide.

However, if the pregnant woman is clearly, obviously, and evidently on her way to get an abortion, these circumstances reduce her ability to make the negligent homicide charge stick.

If the driver hits her with the intention of killing her or her unborn baby, he could be convicted of murder, but again the same problem occurs if she's on her way to get an abortion.

These examples spotlight that the law has taken hold of the first horn of Euthyphro's dilemma by capriciously claiming that it is murder if and only if we say it's murder.

It's murder if she has no intention of killing the baby herself. It's not if she's on her way to kill her baby anyways.
 
I absolutely do, and nothing you've written in this thread has shown otherwise.


Of course not. Abortion is abortion - which happens to be A legal choice of ways to handle/treat a pregnancy. It also should remain a medical procedure people can choose to have performed.
Its not a legal choice in some countries.
 
Abortion supporters: if your mother told you "I should have aborted you. I regret bringing you to term."

How would you feel? Angry, hurt, etc? Would you care?

Would you still support abortion?
In all honesty since I was here I wouldn't give a spit. I also wouldn't support abortion because it's the killing if the most innocent and vulnerable people on the planet. Anyone who supports such a thing is from satan
 
I absolutely do, and nothing you've written in this thread has shown otherwise.


Of course not. Abortion is abortion - which happens to be A legal choice of ways to handle/treat a pregnancy. It also should remain a medical procedure people can choose to have performed.
What happens when a doctor "performs" the "medical procedure?"
 
You need to get a grip on reality. The reproductive process happens that way so instead of finding it unfair you need to come to terms with it because it isnt going to change for you
This is another problem with abortion supporters and liberals in general:

They think they can redefine the laws of nature through legislation or judicial fiat. They do not realize that the courts or the legislature no more has the power to change the laws of reproductivity and marriage then they do the law of gravity or mathematics.
 

Where did I say I wanted it taken away? I am in the UK - this doesn't really affect me.

I think the 2A is a ridiculous anachronism from the days when it took so long to load a gun that you could go for a pint and come back to your assailant, and the 2A mentions, in its opening sentence, a "well-regulated millitia" that is utterly absent.
Let me get this straight: someone from the UK is in a position to tell us how to read or interpret our constitution?

The right to keep and bear arms was given to people becasue--the right to keep and bear arms is what guarantees all the other rights. A government that knows its citizens can be armed is a government that in less of a position to take away rights. A government that knows its citizens are armed and can fight back is a government in less of a position to oppress its citizens.
Yes - "severely punish" all those school shooters. That will bring their victims back to life and deter other school shooters!
If they had people in the school armed and trained to respond, that would prevent killings also! You see, good guys armed with guns can take out bad guys armed with guns and prevent the bad guy with a gun from murdering people.

And--since you support abortion, it is difficult to understand why you are so troubled by the right to keep and bear arms. You see, if your argument is that innocent human life in the womb does not deserve protection, why do you care about life outside the womb? On what basis do you demand that I care about innocent victims of gun violence when you do not care about innocent victims of abortion?
Why do so many criminals have access to guns...? Guns sure make things easier for them.
Well, as you abortion supporting types are so fond of point out: "Making abortion illegal won't stop abortions." Making gun ownership illegal won't stop bad guys from acquiring guns. All it will do is stop the good guys from acquiring guns thus making them defenseless when bad guys go on killing sprees.
There being no real way to curb what you call "irresponsible sex" - abstinence-only education actually makes things worse, for example - treating the "symptoms" is all we can do.
With birth control widely available, and with prophalistcs widely available, and, with adoption as an option, it is difficult to understand why abortion is necessary.
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.
But with all the other options in place, why is abortion even necessary?
 
"We" being anti-abortioners, I take it. OK - while I recognize that some aborted pregnancies are human lives (the idea of "human from conception" is laughable to me), I would still favour the woman.
I see. All lives are equal, but some lives are more equal than others. All lives are valuable, but some lives are more valuable than others.

You do not see the slippery slope you are on?
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.
Because that is how it works. If you have a problem with this, take it up with mother nature.
A right that the woman does not have.
She did when she was unborn. See--this right applies to everyone. Everyone was unborn at one time.
Each of us grants one party rights over the other. Do not pretend otherwise.
No we do not. EVERYONE that exists was at one time unborn and thus enjoyed the right to "live inside another person." Note how the abortion supporter looks on an unborn child: a parasite. Question: how is a born child dependent on his or her mother NOT a parasite?
A poorly disguised slippery slope fallacy - my lack of objection to women abortion their own pregnancies does not entail anything else.
And if all abortion involved was the woman and her doctor, I would agree. The problem is that there is an unborn child to consider.
And certainly not genocide.
And Hitler never saw what he did as genocide either.
 
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.

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.

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.

If someone does not want to follow God's will, 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.

And they have accepted the consequences by opting to murder unborn human beings.
As a Christian, I agree with everything you have said.

However, becasue not all people have Christian values, and becasue I am trying to avoid debating Christianity and religion with abortion supporters, I try to avoid bringing Christian values into the discussion--in order to keep the debate focused on 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?
That is exactly what he and all abortion supporters believe.

They believe than what comes out of the womb at birth is fundamentally different in kind from what was inside the womb pre-birth.

They believe an acorn is fundamentally different in kind from the oak tree that that develops from it.

Blame Nominalism. Nominalism is at the foundation of liberal, secular, atheistic, humanistic values.
 
And
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.
And this is a coherent argument for abortion, how?
 
This is another problem with abortion supporters and liberals in general:

They think they can redefine the laws of nature through legislation or judicial fiat. They do not realize that the courts or the legislature no more has the power to change the laws of reproductivity and marriage then they do the law of gravity or mathematics.
At first glance this seems a good point, but I don' think they're suggesting that they're changing these laws of nature. They're simply looking for a way to legitimately violate them. As Paul says, just because it's legal it doesn't then follow that it's beneficial.
 
At first glance this seems a good point, but I don' think they're suggesting that they're changing these laws of nature. They're simply looking for a way to legitimately violate them. As Paul says, just because it's legal it doesn't then follow that it's beneficial.
Not just violate the laws of nature, but violate them in a way where they think doing so will be consequence free.
 
As a Christian, I agree with everything you have said.

However, becasue not all people have Christian values, and becasue I am trying to avoid debating Christianity and religion with abortion supporters, I try to avoid bringing Christian values into the discussion--in order to keep the debate focused on abortion.

Fair enough. Allow me to amend my comments to suit the playing field.

There is no right to fornication or adultery listed anywhere in the Constitution or any of the founding documents of this country. Moreover, fidelity and marriage facilitate social harmony rather than what occurs when women are free to copulate with whoever they please. This isn't just a biological fact, but one that sociologists and psychologists have noted for quite some time. Marriage and laws against adultery originally allowed women a future apart from being a burden to their parents. It also allowed Beta males the opportunity to produce descendants. History also spotlights how civilizations decline with infidelity. Broken families lead to broken societies.


Propping up contraception instead of abstinence doesn't really address the fact that too many people either can't comprehend how to use contraception, or don't have the discipline to use it. The underlying problem is probably a lack of self control so presenting solutions that require intelligence or self control are destined to fail. This is what we see. If contraception was a success, it would be a different story, but it isn't effective if people can't use it.

Surgeries would put an end to the issue almost immediately. Perhaps I should add an effective propaganda campaign would facilitate those surgeries as well.

Getting fixed is quick, easy, convenient, a much less dangerous operation than an abortion, and in the long run significantly much more cost effective than anything we see today. Let the taxpayer foot the bill for the first operation, then if they decide they want to have children, let them pay for the corrective surgery.
 
Back
Top