How would you feel?

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.
I agree. I think we pro-lifers need to better articulate and develop these points. Liberals do not make the connection between undermining of the family and broken societies. When people attempt to deny the natural law, the natural law always has a way of asserting it's dominance.

We can see today--that society is becoming more and more violent and more and more lawless. What is worse, liberal politicians lend a sympathetic ear to the criminal element believing them to be victims. There the liberal is right: the criminal element are victims to some degree. But they are incorrect on the reason that criminals are victims. Liberals think we have criminals becasue of oppression. They think crime is the cry of the oppressed. Unfortunately liberals do not make the connection between their liberal social values, the laws they pass to reflect these values, and the destruction of society. Thus, criminals are victims; victims of liberal values.
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.
That is a good point. Liberals love to mock people for believing in abstinence. They mock Christians for their morality, especially Catholics. Teaching kids abstinence doesn't work the liberals cry. We have to teach sex education whereby students learn about how reproduction works and then teach them "safe sex." There, students learn about birth control and the proper use of prophalitics. These sex education programs---work no better than abstinence programs for the exact reasons you cite.
Surgeries would put an end to the issue almost immediately. Perhaps I should add an effective propaganda campaign would facilitate those surgeries as well.
They would. The problem is--what if you want to get pregnancy down the line--when you married?
 
If it's legal, it's by-definition not murder.
If I can get a law passed that says Pi is 3.2, is Pi 3.2? If I get a law passed that says we will no longer have to obey the law of gravity, can we exempt ourselves from the law of gravity and float around--because the president, congress and or the courts said so?

Why do you think murder is not murder just becasue the law says we will not define murder as murder when it involves the unborn?
Sorry; yours is nothing better than an emotion-based argument.
But you present arguments based on reason and logic, do you?
 
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?
Arguments that appeal to emotions are fallacious. I don't care who makes them; they are by definition fallacious.
 
Arguments that appeal to emotions are fallacious. I don't care who makes them; they are by definition fallacious.
How would you feel? That was the question I asked. I didn't ask about logic or the rules of logic. I asked a simple question. "How would you feel."

So, how would you feel?
 
If it's legal, it's by-definition not murder.

Sorry; yours is nothing better than an emotion-based argument.

I agree. I think we pro-lifers need to better articulate and develop these points. Liberals do not make the connection between undermining of the family and broken societies. When people attempt to deny the natural law, the natural law always has a way of asserting it's dominance.

We can see today--that society is becoming more and more violent and more and more lawless. What is worse, liberal politicians lend a sympathetic ear to the criminal element believing them to be victims. There the liberal is right: the criminal element are victims to some degree. But they are incorrect on the reason that criminals are victims. Liberals think we have criminals becasue of oppression. They think crime is the cry of the oppressed. Unfortunately liberals do not make the connection between their liberal social values, the laws they pass to reflect these values, and the destruction of society. Thus, criminals are victims; victims of liberal values.

That is a good point. Liberals love to mock people for believing in abstinence. They mock Christians for their morality, especially Catholics. Teaching kids abstinence doesn't work the liberals cry. We have to teach sex education whereby students learn about how reproduction works and then teach them "safe sex." There, students learn about birth control and the proper use of prophalitics. These sex education programs---work no better than abstinence programs for the exact reasons you cite.

They would. The problem is--what if you want to get pregnancy down the line--when you married?
These surgeries are reversable, no? Women can get their tubes untied. Men can get their plumbing reconnected too.
 
If it's legal, it's by-definition not murder.

Sorry; yours is nothing better than an emotion-based argument.
Lies are still lies. No matter how you dress up the word. Fabrication, fib, prevaricate, tall tales, etc.

When one human kills another human, that's murder.

It appears that at least 26 states in the U.S. will not allow abortion to be performed. Those 26 states will acknowledge that abortion is murder. More will follow. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 
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.
But when you get rid of God you think you are a god. That is what leftists have done and how they behave.
 
How would you feel? That was the question I asked. I didn't ask about logic or the rules of logic. I asked a simple question. "How would you feel."

So, how would you feel?
I'm not answering that question because appeals to emotion are fallacious and should be avoided. Sound social and legal policy should be based on reason, not emotion. 330 million different emotional responses will lead to abject relativism and that would be the antithesis of your goal. It may not yet be realized but the question undermines your own hope.
 
I'm not answering that question because appeals to emotion are fallacious and should be avoided. Sound social and legal policy should be based on reason, not emotion.
Really? Then how do you respond to abortion supporters who insist that pro-lifers want women who are raped to continue to suffer by bearing the rapist's child? How do you respond to abortion supporters who insist pro-lifers want women to die rather than have an abortion?

I mean----95% of the arguments I hear from abortion supporters are all appeal to emotion. I have yet to see an abortion supporter put together a coherent, meaningful, intelligent, and substantive defense of abortion. Watch MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, or pretty much any station that isn't Fox News--and you will see what I mean. It is all appeal to emotion. "Women are going to die!" "You want to force victims of rape to be mothers!" "You want to take away reproductive freedom and sovereignty over a woman's body." On and on it goes--nothing but emotion.

It is understandable why they would do that. You see, that is all they have. Fortunately for these TV stations, most of the people who watch these programs just want their beliefs reinforced without having them critically challenged or otherwise be forced to think critically about their beliefs.

Now the abortion supporter turns around and tells me--I can't appeal to emotion?
330 million different emotional responses will lead to abject relativism and that would be the antithesis of your goal. It may not yet be realized but the question undermines your own hope.
Fine--why do abortion supporters get to use endless appeals to emotion, but I don't?
 
Last edited:
I'm not answering that question because appeals to emotion are fallacious and should be avoided. Sound social and legal policy should be based on reason, not emotion. 330 million different emotional responses will lead to abject relativism and that would be the antithesis of your goal. It may not yet be realized but the question undermines your own hope.
Seems like you have answered it. I dont think its wrong to feel emotional about the death of other human beings.
So.since abortion stops the human reproductive process you would be against it I assume?
 
Fine--why do abortion supporters get to use endless appeals to emotion, but I don't?
They do not get to use appeals to emotion with me, and they should not be permitted to do so with you, either. The more important question is why you think it appropriate to behave like baby-killing unbelievers.

Romans 12:9-21
Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Do not live like they live..... even when arguing abortion.

Colossians 4:5-6
Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.

Making a person feel bad and then trying to persuade them to a godly point of view because of those bad feelings is antithetical to both scripture and reason. Logic, or reason, is not a man-made invention; it comes from the God Who is Himself reasonable and rational and invites us to do likewise.

Isaiah 1:18
"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool."

Emotions are what gets women into abortuaries. Anxiety, fear, regret, abandonment, isolation, shame..... none of them are a sound basis for any abortion decision.
 
Seems like you have answered it. I dont think its wrong to feel emotional about the death of other human beings.
I did not say there was anything wrong with feeling emotional about the death of other human beings.

Did I?

What I said was emotions are not sound bases for making sound social and legal policy. If they were pro-abortionists would have justification to have us all executed 😲. Reason, not emotion will win the case and those who would resort to appeals to emotion absent reason are part of the problem to be solved. The fact is many in this country (USA) feel just fine killing human fetal babies, and some of them take delight in it. Their feelings are no more a legitimate basis for deciding the matter than are your feelings or mine and the attempt to make it about emotional experiences is part of the problem to be solved.

Killing babies is immoral and destructive to society no matter how anyone feels about it.
.
So, since abortion stops the human reproductive process you would be against it I assume?
I am unequivocally against abortion as a means of birth control and have spent a great deal of my nearly 40 years as a Christian actively working against that practice. As a young man with more liberal sensibilities I was pro-abortion. In my early years as a Christian I volunteered at Christian crisis pregnancy centers, mainly run by Catholics (not that it matters to me). I and my wife have mentored and housed young women (and sometimes their boyfriends) who were pregnant and in need of support. As a counselor I routinely help women who have aborted prior pregnancies with the effects of those choices and that experience. And I've argued with those holding pro-abortion views for nearly 15 years in internet discussion boards.

These are some of the reasons I know appeals to emotion are not a sound basis for setting social, legal, and political policy, so I will apprecitate it very much if my words are not misrepresented.
I dont think its wrong to feel emotional about the death of other human beings.
I never said any such thing and do not appreciate words put into my posts I never posted.

It's a good way to lose an audience and have only the trolls with which to trade posts.
 
I did not say there was anything wrong with feeling emotional about the death of other human beings.

Did I?

What I said was emotions are not sound bases for making sound social and legal policy. If they were pro-abortionists would have justification to have us all executed 😲. Reason, not emotion will win the case and those who would resort to appeals to emotion absent reason are part of the problem to be solved. The fact is many in this country (USA) feel just fine killing human fetal babies, and some of them take delight in it. Their feelings are no more a legitimate basis for deciding the matter than are your feelings or mine and the attempt to make it about emotional experiences is part of the problem to be solved.

Killing babies is immoral and destructive to society no matter how anyone feels about it.
.

I am unequivocally against abortion as a means of birth control and have spent a great deal of my nearly 40 years as a Christian actively working against that practice. As a young man with more liberal sensibilities I was pro-abortion. In my early years as a Christian I volunteered at Christian crisis pregnancy centers, mainly run by Catholics (not that it matters to me). I and my wife have mentored and housed young women (and sometimes their boyfriends) who were pregnant and in need of support. As a counselor I routinely help women who have aborted prior pregnancies with the effects of those choices and that experience. And I've argued with those holding pro-abortion views for nearly 15 years in internet discussion boards.

These are some of the reasons I know appeals to emotion are not a sound basis for setting social, legal, and political policy, so I will apprecitate it very much if my words are not misrepresented.

I never said any such thing and do not appreciate words put into my posts I never posted.

It's a good way to lose an audience and have only the trolls with which to trade posts.
And what do you do with people who cannot reason?

Abortion supporters do not reason. How are we supposed to reason with people who can't reason?
 
I did not say there was anything wrong with feeling emotional about the death of other human beings.

Did I?

What I said was emotions are not sound bases for making sound social and legal policy. If they were pro-abortionists would have justification to have us all executed 😲. Reason, not emotion will win the case and those who would resort to appeals to emotion absent reason are part of the problem to be solved. The fact is many in this country (USA) feel just fine killing human fetal babies, and some of them take delight in it. Their feelings are no more a legitimate basis for deciding the matter than are your feelings or mine and the attempt to make it about emotional experiences is part of the problem to be solved.

Killing babies is immoral and destructive to society no matter how anyone feels about it.
.

I am unequivocally against abortion as a means of birth control and have spent a great deal of my nearly 40 years as a Christian actively working against that practice. As a young man with more liberal sensibilities I was pro-abortion. In my early years as a Christian I volunteered at Christian crisis pregnancy centers, mainly run by Catholics (not that it matters to me). I and my wife have mentored and housed young women (and sometimes their boyfriends) who were pregnant and in need of support. As a counselor I routinely help women who have aborted prior pregnancies with the effects of those choices and that experience. And I've argued with those holding pro-abortion views for nearly 15 years in internet discussion boards.

These are some of the reasons I know appeals to emotion are not a sound basis for setting social, legal, and political policy, so I will apprecitate it very much if my words are not misrepresented.

I never said any such thing and do not appreciate words put into my posts I never posted.

It's a good way to lose an audience and have only the trolls with which to trade posts.
To be fair it was my opinon and a question.
I am in agreement with you
 
And what do you do with people who cannot reason?

Abortion supporters do not reason. How are we supposed to reason with people who can't reason?
I think one of the best ways would be to point out that there is no effective difference between abortion and euthanasia, then place them into the position where it is they who is going to have their life cut short by someone else's decision.
 
And what do you do with people who cannot reason?
No such people exist. Everyone can reason. Whether or not they do so is not dependent upon their ability.
Abortion supporters do not reason. How are we supposed to reason with people who can't reason?
If that were true then this op and the entire thread is fruitless meaninglessness.

So, since this is your op, unless you're going to openly acknowledge a willful practice to act fruitlessly then you, me, BMS, and everyone else here know better. If you're not a believer in fruitless action then (presuppositionally) the op assumes some faculty of reason on the part of the readers. 'd prefer not to have to point these inconsistencies out but we'd both like to see abortion rare, so please give consideration to my posts and adjust your own case(s) accordingly. Don't give the abortion advocates the opportunity to do what I've done because they'll point out the fallacies to dismiss your position. Their motive will not be to make you a better apologist.


Let me also recommend, if they haven't already been read, Nancy Pearcey's books, "Total Truth," and "Love Thy Body." These aren't specifically on abortion but both books attend to the topic presuppositionally from a Christian pov. If the topic of abortion is important to you then you might also Kristin Luker's book, "Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood" a read. It's a secular book and she's a liberal writing on the sociological aspects of class but it's well worth the read if for no other reason than to better understand the history and reasoning (or lack thereof) of abortion advocates.
 
No such people exist. Everyone can reason. Whether or not they do so is not dependent upon their ability.

If that were true then this op and the entire thread is fruitless meaninglessness.


So, since this is your op, unless you're going to openly acknowledge a willful practice to act fruitlessly then you, me, BMS, and everyone else here know better. If you're not a believer in fruitless action then (presuppositionally) the op assumes some faculty of reason on the part of the readers. 'd prefer not to have to point these inconsistencies out but we'd both like to see abortion rare, so please give consideration to my posts and adjust your own case(s) accordingly. Don't give the abortion advocates the opportunity to do what I've done because they'll point out the fallacies to dismiss your position. Their motive will not be to make you a better apologist.

Let me also recommend, if they haven't already been read, Nancy Pearcey's books, "Total Truth," and "Love Thy Body." These aren't specifically on abortion but both books attend to the topic presuppositionally from a Christian pov. If the topic of abortion is important to you then you might also Kristin Luker's book, "Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood" a read. It's a secular book and she's a liberal writing on the sociological aspects of class but it's well worth the read if for no other reason than to better understand the history and reasoning (or lack thereof) of abortion advocates.
I thought you were pro-abortion.

Please clarify--are you pro-abortion or pro-life?
 
Back
Top