No, our goal is not reducing abortions.

[Beloved Daughter]

What a load of nonsense.

I'm happy to hear your opinion. Thanks for sharing. Just one tiny thing should be addressed, why do you hold the opinion that you shared? Please tell us why

I've seen many people object, but almost no one wants to say why.

This is the model we use. I think that many people have already seen it.

The SLED Model

To further show that the unborn fetus is a human being, let’s introduce the SLED model, an acronym that stands for:

S – Size. The unborn fetus is smaller than an infant and most people are shorter than 7-foot basketball star Rudy Gobert. However, rational people would not claim that the infant is more valuable than the fetus nor is Rudy worth more than a teenage girl. In addition, a sumo wrestler does not have more value than a trapeze artist. Therefore, size does not indicate one’s worth.

L – Level of Development. The unborn fetus is at an earlier stage of his or her development than a newborn baby, but an eight-year-old child is less developed (both physically and mentally) than an adolescent. Older, stronger, more intelligent humans do not have more dignity and fundamental rights than those who are younger, weaker, less intelligent, and more vulnerable. To use the acorn analogy, an acorn is not a “potential” oak tree but rather a tiny living oak tree inside a shell. It is at the same level of development that every oak tree once existed during that particular stage of life.

E – Environment. A journey through a birth canal cannot account for a change in a child’s rights. Location does not affect personhood. A child in the womb or outside the womb is still a human being.

D – Degree of Dependency. The unborn fetus is totally dependent on the mother for life through the umbilical cord, but newborn babies are also fully dependent. A baby left to herself will die within hours unless she is attended to and her needs met. In fact, everyone relies on other people and things to some degree. We don’t question the personhood of those who are dependent on kidney machines, insulin, or pacemakers. Elderly people in a nursing home who have to be fed are no less valuable than the person who is feeding them.[4]

The syllogism

Let’s return to the syllogism given above:

Premise 1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.

Premise 2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.

Therefore, Abortion is morally wrong.

Let’s consider each point:

Premise 1: The key words in the first premise is “intentionally kill.” The Bible is clear that “thou shalt not kill (murder).” A detractor might try to bring up “wartime” situations. But the enemy of your country would not be considered an “innocent human being.” The soldier behind the enemy line is trying to kill you first, which is how warfare works. Or if someone breaks into your house and brandishes a kitchen knife on his approach to stab you, most people would support your right to defend yourself by shooting him with your gun.

Premise 2: By definition, abortion is taking the life of an innocent unborn fetus that, if there was no abortion, would have lived.

Conclusion: If the unborn fetus is innocent, as shown in the two premises, then killing an innocent human being (the fetus) is wrong, for all people, in all times, and in all places. This is not a morally relativistic choice.

In his book Politically Correct Death: Answering Arguments for Abortion Rights—a resource I recommend and use throughout the rest of this article—philosopher Francis J. Beckwith provides reasons why full humanness begins at conception:

“At the moment of conception, a separate unique human individual, with its own genetic code, comes into existence, needing only food, water, shelter, and oxygen in order to grow and develop.”

“Like the infant, the child, and the adolescent, the conceptus is a being who is in the process of becoming. He is not a becoming who is striving toward being. He is not a potential human life but a human life with great potential.”

“The conceptus is the sexual product of human parents, and a developing conceptus that is the sexual produce of members of a particular mammalian species is itself an individual member of that species.”

“The same being that begins as a zygote continues to birth and adulthood. There is no decisive break in the continuous development of the human entity from conception until death that would make this entity a different individual before birth. This is why it makes perfect sense for anyone of us to say, ‘When I was conceived. . .’”[5]

 

[Beloved Daughter]

Personally speaking, I am uninterested in abortion as a consequence of the immorality of pagans, as "God will judge those outside the church" and I see abortion as God's judgement at work. It's nasty, brutal and ... it's the judgement of God.

1 Cor 5:12 "What business of mine is it to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

Abortion is one of the many ways God's judgement is visited upon pagans. There are many other ways. Immorality begets abortion, as evil begets evil. Clearly the horrid nature of the act creates an good opportunity for evangelism. But as for the "issue of abortion," I think Christians are entitled to ignore it, as it's inherently a political issue affecting pagans, unless there are ulterior factors as stake such it being done on the grounds of sex, where it can destabalize society in the long term. Then there needs to be state intervention. Where it becomes a healthcare issue, such as when a seriously deformed foetus is detected, the issue as I see it is strictly for the parents, and not others to dictate, bearing in mind that it is they who would have to bring it up.

Wow. At least you provided an answer. What do you know about William Wilberforce or the Northern U.S. Abolitionist movement? Christians brought an end to slavery in both the U.K. and U.S.

Abolitionism in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is a man that you probably know quite a bit about. His name was John Newton, the Captain of a slave trade ship. He came to know Jesus and arguably wrote the greatest hymn of all time.

If it's okay with you, I'm going to keep walking the public pavement and trying to stop women from murdering their children. I won't be upset if you don't join me.

Does this ring true to you?

Now I am not a Catholic. Nevertheless, the Cardinal provides an example for those who will not address what is morally evil. Referring to the Senate and the Congress, "Personally, I am not in favor of anyone shooting the whole lot of you, but if someone wants to do that, I leave them free".

What we do matters. I'm going to do everything in my power to prevent as many murders of tiny babies that I can. As Martin Luther said "I can do no other".

 

[cjab]

If it's okay with you, I'm going to keep walking the public pavement and trying to stop women from murdering their children. I won't be upset if you don't join me.

Each has their own calling in life.

Does this ring true to you?

My argument was focused on abortion being largely a pagan issue. If there is evidence of gratuitous abortion amongst those within a church, that's a different matter. That or those persons may need to be excommunicated for bringing the church into disrepute.

Now I am not a Catholic. Nevertheless, the Cardinal provides an example for those who will not address what is morally evil. Referring to the Senate and the Congress, "Personally, I am not in favor of anyone shooting the whole lot of you, but if someone wants to do that, I leave them free".

Pagans will do what they will do. No point in fretting, at least when it doesn't affect you personally.

Psa 37:1 "Of David. Do not fret because of those who are evil or be envious of those who do wrong;"
Psa 37:7 "Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; do not fret when people succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes."
Psa 37:8 "Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret—it leads only to evil."
Pro 24:19 "Do not fret because of evildoers or be envious of the wicked,"

What we do matters. I'm going to do everything in my power to prevent as many murders of tiny babies that I can. As Martin Luther said "I can do no other".

Good luck, but the word "baby" does denote one that is born, and the bible never uses the word "murder" in respect of a foetus.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Pro-life hardens its message. It's time to imprison murderers and thieves.

No, Our Goal Is Not Reducing Abortions - End Abortion Now

Conversing with enough abortion advocates over a period of time will expose you to the same tired arguments again and again.

endabortionnow.com

They start with a tweet from a supposed gospel singer'

View attachment 1606
Some excerpts:

Now, any Bible believing Christian who has spent more than an hour on the sidewalk in front of an abortion clinic ministering and offering help knows that for abortion minded mothers it is not a lack of options that is the problem. Women do not murder their unborn children because they have no other option. They murder their children because they have no other desire. The fact is, there are more Christians than ever who serve on the frontlines at these places of death who are ready to serve families, provide resources, and even be willing to adopt these children should mothers and fathers have mercy on them and spare their lives. These are men and women who risk their own well being to care for the widow and the orphan. End Abortion Now has raised up hundreds of local churches who do this work regularly, in the attempt to take away every excuse a mother would have to kill her baby.

This is true. I've spent many hours on the public pavement in front of these abattoirs.

Another excerpt:

I have personally lost my voice pleading from the sidewalk of these death pits for hours on end, telling young women that our church would do anything to help them and that they didn’t have to kill their babies, only to see the majority of them leave the clinic shortly after with middle fingers in the air out of a car window. No, this is not about a lack of options or access to “healthcare.” In my experience, as in the shared experience of other Christians, there have even been women like the kind that Lecrae referred to in his tweet who attempt to hold their unborn babies hostage by demanding “free healthcare” or else they’ll walk through the doors of a clinic to have them killed. Yes, this actually happens. Anyone who says otherwise simply hasn’t walked a mile in our shoes. They are simply not privy to our lived experience.

All true, I see it almost every time I walk.

Finally:

Lastly, notice the “end goal” stated in the tweet: reducing abortions. This is also something that those in the pro-abortion apologist club believe should happen, reasoning on the exact same premise as Lecrae. “We need fewer abortions,” they say, which they fight to bring about through things like a state-approved curriculum of sexual education (perverse indoctrination) that encourages promiscuity and unrestrained sexual liberty in the lives of our youth. Not to mention the obvious, but this indoctrination also encourages the thoughtless use of birth control that furthers the epidemic of children conceived out of wedlock. How do our young people end up at Planned Parenthood again??? For decades now, the Pro-Life industry has played the same game of political football with the unborn in order to reduce the number of abortions through piecemeal legislation rather than outright ending it. They are fighting on the same grounds as their enemies who also want to “reduce abortions.” Only the enemies’ way of doing it is by stealing money from taxpayers in order to fund it on demand and up until the point of birth. For these reasons and more, the end game for Bible-believing Christians when it comes to the issue of abortion should never be “reducing” it or attempting to regulate it as “healthcare.” ABORTION MUST BE ABOLISHED AND CRIMINALIZED AS MURDER IMMEDIATELY.

Someone here will actually read the link and call it a racist rant. Before you do, consider the facts.

Abortion rates by race and ethnicity

www.guttmacher.org

Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2018

This report summarizes abortion data for 2018 and describes trends in abortions during 2009–2018.

www.cdc.gov

​

The article you cite is a bunch of nonsense - blatant falsehoods, ignorance of reality...the usual 'pro-lifer' propaganda piece that refuses to address the actual issues involved and, instead, throws out the usual bullshirt like the one about sex education encouraging promiscuity.

 

[Beloved Daughter]

The article you cite is a bunch of nonsense - blatant falsehoods, ignorance of reality...the usual 'pro-lifer' propaganda piece that refuses to address the actual issues involved and, instead, throws out the usual bullshirt like the one about sex education encouraging promiscuity.

My goodness! That's a lot words against the article, but no evidence to support your opinion.

Here is what I take away from this. I knew this would create backlash, but I also knew that no one would address the issues. I was correct, not a single person even attempted it.

Mr. Connover is correct. These women are without any desire to do anything other than eliminate anything that gets in the way of what they want. We have eliminated all their concerns. We offer them health care, financial assistance and spiritual guidance if they want it. Most of all, there are people by the hundreds of thousands who will receive (adopt) their baby and raise the child well.

Lifetime Adoption Agency | A Nationwide Domestic Adoption Agency

Lifetime helps create a bright future for every child by connecting birth parents and adoptive families through love, compassion, and understanding. With a nationwide open adoption program, our dedicated and knowledgeable adoption coordinators are ready when you are. There’s never any cost for...

lifetimeadoption.com

15 Adoption Realities That Will Shock You

Adoption. The process is enlightening, maddening, difficult and heartbreaking.

www.babygaga.com

Notice that the adoption process is nightmarish and something no birth mother has to even consider. Why the double standard?

Their children are just collateral damage in their lifestyle. They'll go back out and sleep with a person who has no desire to be a parent. It might get in the way of what they (the men) want as well. The other side is a man who wants to raise his child, and has no standing at all. He has no legal rights. So many societal problems are the result of broken families and fatherless homes. Yet, most won't even discuss the father's rights.

In the extreme, One of Dr. Kermit Gosnell's patients admitted she had had at least 6 abortion and complains now that she can no longer get pregnant. She is not a victim. She is amoral. However, if she decided to change, I'd still help her.

All the excuses are laid to waste. People know that the pro-choice arguments are without merit. As the Cardinal pointed out, people don't want to get involved. They stand silently by, do nothing and justify it by being non-confrontational. An entire generation of Germans stood by and did nothing to stop it the killing of Jews. Silence is insidious. They were complicit and so are we if remain silent. It was government sanctioned murder and so is abortion.

Part of my duties is to counsel women who have had abortions and as a result have profound, mind-numbing guilt. No one ever talks about that either.

Bottom line, there is no argument that excuses abortion. It's murder.

"180" (Movie) - Eight Minds CHANGED on Abortion in SECONDS

“180” is a riveting movie about abortion by Ray Comfort where you will see people change their minds in seconds because they were asked one simple question.

www.livingwaters.com

I believe that 3801 Lancaster documentary is worth whatever it may cost to rent it.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

My goodness! That's a lot words against the article, but no evidence to support your opinion.

Just like the article posts no evidence to support the opinions it gives.

Here is what I take away from this. I knew this would create backlash, but I also knew that no one would address the issues. I was correct, not a single person even attempted it.

Mr. Connover is correct. These women are without any desire to do anything other than eliminate anything that gets in the way of what they want. We have eliminated all their concerns. We offer them health care, financial assistance and spiritual guidance if they want it. Most of all, there are people by the hundreds of thousands who will receive (adopt) their baby and raise the child well.

Lifetime Adoption Agency | A Nationwide Domestic Adoption Agency

Lifetime helps create a bright future for every child by connecting birth parents and adoptive families through love, compassion, and understanding. With a nationwide open adoption program, our dedicated and knowledgeable adoption coordinators are ready when you are. There’s never any cost for...

lifetimeadoption.com

15 Adoption Realities That Will Shock You

Adoption. The process is enlightening, maddening, difficult and heartbreaking.

www.babygaga.com

Notice that the adoption process is nightmarish and something no birth mother has to even consider. Why the double standard?

Their children are just collateral damage in their lifestyle. They'll go back out and sleep with a person who has no desire to be a parent. It might get in the way of what they (the men) want as well. The other side is a man who wants to raise his child, and has no standing at all. He has no legal rights. So many societal problems are the result of broken families and fatherless homes. Yet, most won't even discuss the father's rights.

In the extreme, One of Dr. Kermit Gosnell's patients admitted she had had at least 6 abortion and complains now that she can no longer get pregnant. She is not a victim. She is amoral. However, if she decided to change, I'd still help her.

All the excuses are laid to waste. People know that the pro-choice arguments are without merit. As the Cardinal pointed out, people don't want to get involved. They stand silently by, do nothing and justify it by being non-confrontational. An entire generation of Germans stood by and did nothing to stop it the killing of Jews. Silence is insidious. They were complicit and so are we if remain silent. It was government sanctioned murder and so is abortion.

Part of my duties is to counsel women who have had abortions and as a result have profound, mind-numbing guilt. No one ever talks about that either.

Bottom line, there is no argument that excuses abortion. It's murder.

"180" (Movie) - Eight Minds CHANGED on Abortion in SECONDS

“180” is a riveting movie about abortion by Ray Comfort where you will see people change their minds in seconds because they were asked one simple question.

www.livingwaters.com

I believe that 3801 Lancaster documentary is worth whatever it may cost to rent it.

The article, as well as your own post, is full of laden and false terminology pushing an agenda without the slightest regard for the other side's opinion. Abortion is not murder (by definition). Nobody is pro-abortion; we are pro-choice, for putting the decision in the hands of the person who is pregnant, not a bunch of busybodies outside a Planned Parenthood.

The author then segues into one of the hallmarks of the modern 'pro-life' argument - it's not good enough to stop abortion, we have to stop it their way. We can't do the only thing that is actually proven to lower abortion rates - increased sex education and availability of contraceptives - because the authors imagine it would lead to increased promiscuity and "unrestrained sexual liberty" (and, of course, they provide zero evidence for their claim). They are happy to put stopping abortion below keeping knowledge from adolescents in their list of priorities. "We can't actually give them knowledge - they might choose something we don't like! Better that we keep them ignorant, even if, as a result, there are more abortions." What a loathsome crew.

If they actually wanted to lower abortion rates (the idea of stopping abortion is stupid - it could never happen) they'd be encouraging and applauding what they deride. Their hypocrisy is on open show. Like the vast majority of the 'pro-life' crowd, they're about posturing and being holier-than-thou, not about lowering abortion rates.

 

[Beloved Daughter]

Just like the article posts no evidence to support the opinions it gives.

Only if you didn't read it. We have done our homework and are happy to share with others if they decide to listen. Don't feel as though you have to do anything about this moral depravity. We have no expectation that certain people will do their own work.

Much of what we claim has been witnessed from public pavements all across this nation. I see it every day I walk. I wish I could show you the video that we took of a pro-choice woman who was so out of control, that she rang a cowbell and punctuated every ring with an epithet. She just couldn't answer the questions posed to her. She offers no cogent argument, just a bell and a curse. CARM won't allow me to post the video because of her deplorable language. Such is the sinking level of discourse in our country. But in the interest of truth telling, if you want to see it, go to YT and type in: Talking With A Satanist At Planned Parenthood.

You have no argument.

The article, as well as your own post, is full of laden and false terminology pushing an agenda without the slightest regard for the other side's opinion. Abortion is not murder (by definition). Nobody is pro-abortion; we are pro-choice, for putting the decision in the hands of the person who is pregnant, not a bunch of busybodies outside a Planned Parenthood.

All you have is nothing more than the video I suggested, shows. You want to name-call and change the definition of "Thou shalt not Murder".

https://www.biblehub.com/exodus/20-13.htm.

It's the argument in support of slavery. As long as it is legal you'll go along with it. The Germans destroyed 6 million Jews because it was legal to do so. I thank God that the consciences of the world stepped in. Now the country of Germany requires education about the holocaust so that they it's never repeated.

If you support pro-choice, by default you support abortion. Americans ignored the truth and have seen the result of millions of babies murdered. You can't wiggle out of this by changing the conversation to what is legal. BTW, in some states if you are in an accident that kills a pregnant woman, they'll charge you murder in a New York minute. It's the very definition of schizophrenic laws.

You have no argument.

The author then segues into one of the hallmarks of the modern 'pro-life' argument - it's not good enough to stop abortion, we have to stop it their way. We can't do the only thing that is actually proven to lower abortion rates - increased sex education and availability of contraceptives - because the authors imagine it would lead to increased promiscuity and "unrestrained sexual liberty" (and, of course, they provide zero evidence for their claim). They are happy to put stopping abortion below keeping knowledge from adolescents in their list of priorities. "We can't actually give them knowledge - they might choose something we don't like! Better that we keep them ignorant, even if, as a result, there are more abortions." What a loathsome crew.

Really, 60 million babies were the result of no sex education? Most of these women got the standard sex education. In fact, if you want to prove it to yourself, go to the Official Department of Education in almost any state and you will see that your statement has no basis in fact. Here is mine from AZ. The only thing that would prevent such an education would be that a parent chooses not to allow their child to take these classes.

https://azdhs.gov/documents/prevention/womens-childrens-health/rfga/prep-tribal/policy-proceduer-manual/attachment-d-r7-2-303-sex-ed-in-schools-rule.pdf

In AZ, we don't usurp the rights of parents.

Feel free to check your own state's statement. I'd be shocked if it's not available. I haven't gone to every state to check. I'm a teacher in AZ so I know how to look for these things.

I hear what you are saying, but you don't provide any facts.

Beyond that, there is no teenager in the world (excepting places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc., that doesn't know what sex is about and the consequences it might produce.

I'm surprised that anyone will still use the contraception argument. That's what abortions are for, personal convenience assault upon their children.

Almost all internal birth control, oral and IUD's are abortifacients. Condoms are not. If there is a boy out there that cannot fork out $20.00 per month for condoms is not using the powers of intellect that God provided. Then there is the fact, that most school nurses hand them out to anyone (even girls) who want them.

https://www.walgreens.com/search/results.jsp?Ntt=condoms

Taxpayers should not be using their own money for the bad choices of others.

Then you offer a statement about 'knowledge'. 60 million abortions since Roe v Wade scream that knowledge ain't werkin.

FACT CHECK: Have There Been 60 Million Abortions Since Roe v. Wade?

'I didn't know if it could end in my lifetime'

checkyourfact.com

You finish this part of the discussion with name-calling. I hear a cow bell and possibly even a curse.

You have no argument.

If they actually wanted to lower abortion rates (the idea of stopping abortion is stupid - it could never happen) they'd be encouraging and applauding what they deride. Their hypocrisy is on open show. Like the vast majority of the 'pro-life' crowd, they're about posturing and being holier-than-thou, not about lowering abortion rates.

Don't confuse us with other so-called pro-life groups. We want to END abortion. We are called ENDABORTIONNOW, notlowertheratesofabortionnow. How many abortions over 48 years is an acceptable number you?

Although I admit to using the cow-bell analogy more than I should have, I don't actually believe you are doing that. You are responding as almost all pro-choice people do. That is why they fail.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Only if you didn't read it. We have done our homework and are happy to share with others if they decide to listen. Don't feel as though you have to do anything about this moral depravity. We have no expectation that certain people will do their own work.

Much of what we claim has been witnessed from public pavements all across this nation. I see it every day I walk. I wish I could show you the video that we took of a pro-choice woman who was so out of control, that she rang a cowbell and punctuated every ring with an epithet. She just couldn't answer the questions posed to her. She offers no cogent argument, just a bell and a curse. CARM won't allow me to post the video because of her deplorable language. Such is the sinking level of discourse in our country. But in the interest of truth telling, if you want to see it, go to YT and type in: Talking With A Satanist At Planned Parenthood.

You have no argument.

It's not me without the argument. The behaviour of some women who seek or get abortions has nothing to do with women's right to have them. You like to bring it up because you think it makes pro-choicers look bad. It doesn't.

All you have is nothing more than the video I suggested, shows. You want to name-call and change the definition of "Thou shalt not Murder".

It's not me who wants to change definitions - that would be your ilk. Abortion, by definition, is not murder anywhere that it is legal. Deny that and it's you changing the definitions.

It's the argument in support of slavery. As long as it is legal you'll go along with it.

That's nice. Since I nowhere made that argument, supported it, implied it or suggested it...irrelevant.

The Germans destroyed 6 million Jews because it was legal to do so. I thank God that the consciences of the world stepped in. Now the country of Germany requires education about the holocaust so that they it's never repeated.

Again, irrelevant.

If you support pro-choice, by default you support abortion.

Nope. I support the right of women to choose. Being for the legalisation of something does not equate to being for that something; it equates to being for people's right to choose.

Americans ignored the truth and have seen the result of millions of babies murdered. You can't wiggle out of this by changing the conversation to what is legal.

'Wiggle out of' what? I'm neither trying to wiggle out of anything nor do I have the need to do so.

BTW, in some states if you are in an accident that kills a pregnant woman, they'll charge you murder in a New York minute. It's the very definition of schizophrenic laws.

Which, again, has nothing to do with abortion.

You have no argument.

Yeah, so you keep saying...yet your argument consists of irrelevancies and falsehoods.

Really, 60 million babies were the result of no sex education?

Were they? If you say so. Since I didn't say or imply that, I wonder why you suggest it.

Most of these women got the standard sex education. In fact, if you want to prove it to yourself, go to the Official Department of Education in almost any state and you will see that your statement has no basis in fact. Here is mine from AZ. The only thing that would prevent such an education would be that a parent chooses not to allow their child to take these classes.

Which, of course, a great many parents do - particularly people like the woman who wrote the article in question.

In AZ, we don't usurp the rights of parents.

And the children suffer because of it.

Feel free to check your own state's statement. I'd be shocked if it's not available. I haven't gone to every state to check. I'm a teacher in AZ so I know how to look for these things.

I hear what you are saying, but you don't provide any facts.

In comparison to the hugely relevant number of facts you supply. Let me count them...zero.

Beyond that, there is no teenager in the world (excepting places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc., that doesn't know what sex is about and the consequences it might produce.

Bull. Repeated surveys show that some adolescents know surprisingly little about sex and contraception.

I'm surprised that anyone will still use the contraception argument. That's what abortions are for, personal convenience assault upon their children.

I'm surprised that anybody argues against the idea that everybody should have easy access to contraceptives. But then that's what people like the author of the article don't want - freedom for adolescents.

Almost all internal birth control, oral and IUD's are abortifacients. Condoms are not. If there is a boy out there that cannot fork out $20.00 per month for condoms is not using the powers of intellect that God provided. Then there is the fact, that most school nurses hand them out to anyone (even girls) who want them.

Which, again, is beside the point.

Mandatory sex education for all children from earliest schooling until the day they leave. Free, anonymous availability of contraceptives to all teens. And watch the abortion rate plummet. But, of course, that's not what people like the author of the article want. They only want abortion to stop if it's done their way.

Taxpayers should not be using their own money for the bad choices of others.

That's what taxes are for. If you don't like it, I suggest a deserted island where you won't have to pay any taxes and won't have to worry about the audacity of people choosing to act in ways that you don't like.

Then you offer a statement about 'knowledge'. 60 million abortions since Roe v Wade scream that knowledge ain't werkin.

Umm...no, they don't.

You finish this part of the discussion with name-calling. I hear a cow bell and possibly even a curse.

Hearing things? See a doctor.

You have no argument.

Yeah, so you keep saying...yet your argument consists of irrelevancies and falsehoods.

Don't confuse us with other so-called pro-life groups. We want to END abortion. We are called ENDABORTIONNOW, notlowertheratesofabortionnow. How many abortions over 48 years is an acceptable number you?

Yeah, you want to end abortion - provided it's done your way. You're not interested in reasonable, rational solutions. You want everybody to magically start thinking like you. And while you and your ilk posture and preen and make sure they're holier-than-thou, abortions keep on happening.

Although I admit to using the cow-bell analogy more than I should have, I don't actually believe you are doing that. You are responding as almost all pro-choice people do. That is why they fail.

And you are responding as almost all pro-life people do. That is why you fail. And given the numbers you so endlessly recite, it's not us who are failing - it's you. Why? Because it's not just that you're not for the things that would actually lower abortions - you are actively against them. The one thing that has been proven to lower abortion rates - and you fight against it! How ridiculous!

You want an argument? Sure. The right of a woman to bodily autonomy, to determine what goes on with, to and inside her body overrides any right a fetus might be considered to have.

 

[Eightcrackers]

This is a political topic and we need LEGAL punishment. We don't care for noise from backwater tribal enGland.

What punishment?
And for whom?

 

[Eightcrackers]

If you support pro-choice, by default you support abortion.

There is a difference between supporting X and support the right to do X, whether you see it or not, or admit it or not - I am completely in favour of a person's right to drink and/or smoke, even though I would prefer they didn't.

A "pro-abortion" position would be to, say, stand outside a maternity hospital with a placard saying YOU SHOULD HAVE AN ABORTION!!!. Have you ever seen this? Because I haven't.

 

[Beloved Daughter]

It's not me without the argument. The behaviour of some women who seek or get abortions has nothing to do with women's right to have them. You like to bring it up because you think it makes pro-choicers look bad. It doesn't.

It does make them look bad. It tells people that they don't care about the deaths of 60 million babies. That's a fact.

It's not me who wants to change definitions - that would be your ilk. Abortion, by definition, is not murder anywhere that it is legal. Deny that and it's you changing the definitions.

There you go again with the insults and personal attacks. "your ilk". You just can't provide a response without doing this. When you engage in this, you have lost the argument. Sad really.
Definitions change as it did with wholesale slaughter of 6 million Jews and slavery of African Americans. Of course, they weren't counted as Americans then, because they were barely considered human. I dare say that you would not be so generous to the Abolitionists when they wanted to change the law.

Abortion is murder. Everyone knows it. They just don't want to be disagreeable. Others don't want to take a chance at the wholesale attack upon their personhood if they cross pro-choicers. They make up all kinds of twisted language, to accept what they know is wrong. And none of them, including you can answer a single response to the S L E D discussion. My little brother used to run away from our parents holding his hands over his ears. He didn't want to hear or acknowledge what he did that was wrong. Pro-choicer engage in this every day. Trying to change evil for good, takes courage and you have to be willing to engage. They won't.



That's nice. Since I nowhere made that argument, supported it, implied it or suggested it...irrelevant. [/QUOTE]

It's not irrelevant, its a fact. You look away from these facts because you don't like how they defeat your argument.

Again, irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. It's you refusing to see wholesale slaughter when it is supposedly legal. You said countless times, if it's legal, then an act is acceptable to you.

Nope. I support the right of women to choose. Being for the legalisation of something does not equate to being for that something; it equates to being for people's right to choose.

Unless, I'm mistaken, thou shalt not murder is still in the Book. But even if it weren't, I have already demonstrated factually that outrageous shameful behavior and crimes against humanity were legal. Killing one's child is a heinous act. 60 million deaths IS a crime against humanity even if you refuse to see it.

'Wiggle out of' what? I'm neither trying to wiggle out of anything nor do I have the need to do so.

Then you should stop doing it. You do have a need to do so. I don't believe that you are handicapped in any way, so the entire idea that you don't think the results of shameful law is important reveals how badly you want to be right. Again, you were the person who wants to equate legal with acceptable. Don't say things that you can't take back.

Which, again, has nothing to do with abortion.

It has everything to do with abortion. Killing a baby is legal or it is not. The fact that you don't see this is well, disturbing. I believe that you believe this, but you are wrong. It's a frame of mind.

Yeah, so you keep saying...yet your argument consists of irrelevancies and falsehoods.

Broad sweeping statement, for which you provide no evidence. You just don't like it.

Were they? If you say so. Since I didn't say or imply that, I wonder why you suggest it.

We finally agree. You don't want to see the connection between abortion and dead babies. But the facts are these. Abortions result in dead babies. Some states will allow a full term newborn to die by neglecting it. Yet pro-choice people agree, this is acceptable. Though I will concede that some shrink back in horror, but not enough horror to do anything about it. Silence is insidious.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell didn't even worry about neglecting a full term birth, he snipped their spinal cord to sever it from the cerebellum which is the breathing center of the body. Class act, right? Mom doesn't want to have a baby, Gosnell murders it in cold blood. It's her choice, he obliges. It's nothing short of appalling.

 

[Beloved Daughter]

Part 2

Which, of course, a great many parents do - particularly people like woman who wrote the article in question.

It sounds like, though you did not explicitly say, that you are willing to put your child in the hands of government workers instead of a good home. I'm not willing to do that. Look at congress behaving like a bunch of two-year old's having tantrum after tantrum. They aren't even a fit role model. They lie, they cheat, they manipulate, they plot the downfall of others and enact shameful legislation. Feel free to turn your kids over to that, but I won't be following that example.



More importantly, you have DEMONSTRATED that didn't even read the article properly. Because if you had, you would know that no woman wrote that article.



I'm not in favor of sex education for children any more than I am in favor of Trannies in the Kindergarten classroom.

And the children suffer because of it.

Got any evidence for children suffering? I do, it hurts to be torn from limb to limb.

In comparison to the hugely relevant number of facts you supply. Let me count them...zero.

I provided the facts. It's not my fault that you don't check them. Are you afraid of what you will find if you took the time to see for yourself.

Bull. Repeated surveys show that some adolescents know surprisingly little about sex and contraception.

"Bull". Is that what you think will prove your opinion?



Surveys, in general are not part of statistical data. They are loaded with language that aim to get a result they want. This is not science, rather merchandizing. Even statistics can be used to prove anything one wants to prove.



You couched it in "some" adolescents.



Are you not a parent? Trust me, little boys and girls know about sex. They don't have ability to discriminate between facts and fiction, but they do know about sex. I don't believe most adolescents can understand the anatomy well enough to understand what abortifacients are. If you do, then I can only suggest that perhaps you don't either. I'll be happy to listen to you explain how oral contraceptives work, and how IUD's work. You'll need to provide the side effects of both. This should be easy for you, but not a 15 year old child.

I'm surprised that anybody argues against the idea that everybody should have easy access to contraceptives. But then that's what people like the author of the article don't want - freedom for adolescents.

 

[Beloved Daughter]

Part 3

I don't know how this works where you live, but most every place I know of don't allow adolescents to buy a beer, smoke a cigarette, etc.



Child psychology teaches that adolescents are impulsive, slow to evaluate information and not generally responsible for their actions. That's why we have Family Courts. They also teach the most folks aren't fully developed cognitively until their mid-20's. Go look it up. I won't mind a bit.

Which, again, is beside the point.

To a pro-choice advocate I would think that you would know all about abortifacients. Yet you don't. If you want to promote such things, you should know that they can be dangerous. In general, they don't cause any problems, but still, you don't even want to know the science behind it.



Ever heard of DES? It was prescribed legally for many years to pregnancy. It was finally taken off the market because horrible birth defects resulted. A derivative of it is still used today for entirely different purposes. Yet people took it willingly because science said it would help them.

Diethylstilbestrol - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mandatory sex education for all children from earliest schooling until the day they leave. Free, anonymous availability of contraceptives to all teens. And watch the abortion rate plummet. But, of course, that's not what people like the author of the article want. They only want abortion to stop if it's done their way.

We have already discussed the availability of condoms to teenagers. Most schools pass them out like candy. Abortifacients are a different story completely. The fact that you object, has no bearing on the truth of the matter.

That's what taxes are for. If you don't like it, I suggest a deserted island where you won't have to pay any taxes and won't have to worry about the audacity of people choosing to act in ways that you don't like.

No they aren't. The framers never believed that our labor should even be taxed. But they did give Congress the power to draft new law. That is why most American's work until almost August each year to pay for federal taxes, state taxes, county taxes, city taxes, school taxes, phone taxes, Entertainment taxes and this doesn't even address taxes and fees on car registrations, traffic lanes, tolls. I love my country but this is bordering on tyranny. Promoting the general welfare does not mean providing free healthcare, free rent, free entertainment, free food, free phones.

Umm...no, they don't.

Yes, they do. 60 million babies is a crime against humanity. That you don't see it that way, doesn't make it any less true.

Hearing things? See a doctor.

This is what I said. You finish this part of the discussion with name-calling.



You did engage in name calling, just as you have done here multiple times.



I don't name-call and I do my best not too insult anyone. I don't always succeed, but I try.

Yeah, so you keep saying...yet your argument consists of irrelevancies and falsehoods.

Yet, you have not proven even 1 of these.

Yeah, you want to end abortion - provided it's done your way. You're not interested in reasonable, rational solutions. You want everybody to magically start thinking like you. And while you and your ilk posture and preen and make sure they're holier-than-thou, abortions keep on happening.

I love it, more insults "Your ilk posture and preen"



Doesn't it bother you to use personal attacks? Again, it's the sign of a failed argument.

And you are responding as almost all pro-life people do. That is why you fail. And given the numbers you so endlessly recite, it's not us who are failing - it's you. Why? Because it's not just that you're not for the things that would actually lower abortions - you are actively against them. The one thing that has been proven to lower abortion rates - and you fight against it! How ridiculous! {/QUOTE]


You want an argument? Sure. The right of a woman to bodily autonomy, to determine what goes on with, to and inside her body overrides any right a fetus might be considered to have.

And here we have it, blaming all pro-life groups for insisting that we don't murder children says it all.



Your argument dismisses the harm done, because you likely don't want it to be harmful. It is.



All you have is opinion. You have not provided one fact. Though I do give you credit for trying with the 'surveys'.



You are essentially dismissing the facts of abortion, because you don't like them.

Murder is punishable by law.

You are going to have to do better. Much, much better
[/QUOTE]

 

[Beloved Daughter]

There is a difference between supporting X and support the right to do X, whether you see it or not, or admit it or not - I am completely in favour of a person's right to drink and/or smoke, even though I would prefer they didn't.

A "pro-abortion" position would be to, say, stand outside a maternity hospital with a placard saying YOU SHOULD HAVE AN ABORTION!!!. Have you ever seen this? Because I haven't.

No argument from the facts. Just an imaginative response in the extreme. No attempt to use the S L E D model.

 

[Beloved Daughter]

What punishment?
And for whom?

For murderers. I know that's not hard to understand. Killing a child is murder. Calling it anything less is a straight-up lie. Note, I do not accuse you of lying, rather the whole of pro-choice people for believing them.

Selling their body parts to the highest bidder is reprehensible.

You can keep on supporting this, but you haven't answered a single question regarding the facts.

In fact, no one has. I get consistent name calling avoidance of the realities of 60 million babies killed, some of them full term.

 

[Eightcrackers]

No argument from the facts. Just an imaginative response in the extreme. No attempt to use the S L E D model.

Do you acknowledge the difference between

1. "you should do X", and
2. "you should have the right to do X"
?

The difference exists, whether you acknowledge it or not. I'm just curious.

 

[Eightcrackers]

For murderers.

A woman has an abortion at a medical clinic - who, in this situation, should be charged with murder, do you think?

Killing a child is murder.

Correct. But murder is a legal term, not a moral one, and abortion is not legally defined as killing a child.

When you say "abortion is murder", if abortion is legal in your part of the world, you are factually mistaken.

Calling it anything less is a straight-up lie.

Abortion is legal (and, thus, not considered murder) in my country.
Prove - prove - that my country's laws are factually incorrect.

Selling their body parts to the highest bidder is reprehensible.

Whose body parts? The aborted baby's?
I agree.
But this is a separate issue unless all abortions go this way.

You can keep on supporting this, but you haven't answered a single question regarding the facts.

Ask me any question you like - I pride myself on answering.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Part the First

It does make them look bad.

It does not make them look bad. The behaviour of one particular person (which is what we are talking about) does not and cannot make an organisation or group look bad, except to those who are eager to condemn that group. Pro-choicers have murdered doctors before - shall I say that that tells people that all pro-choicers are murderers?

It tells people that they don't care about the deaths of 60 million babies. That's a fact.

There are no babies involved. Your claim is not a fact.

Definitions change as it did with wholesale slaughter of 6 million Jews and slavery of African Americans. Of course, they weren't counted as Americans then, because they were barely considered human.

All of this is completely irrelevant. Of course definitions change. Maybe one day abortion will be murder, if the law changes. The issue is now. Where abortion is legal (now), it cannot be murder (now). Sorry if you don't like it, but that's simply fact.

I dare say that you would not be so generous to the Abolitionists when they wanted to change the law.

Even more irrelevant, although your ad hominem is amusing.

Abortion is murder. Everyone knows it. They just don't want to be disagreeable. Others don't want to take a chance at the wholesale attack upon their personhood if they cross pro-choicers. They make up all kinds of twisted language, to accept what they know is wrong. And none of them, including you can answer a single response to the S L E D discussion. My little brother used to run away from our parents holding his hands over his ears. He didn't want to hear or acknowledge what he did that was wrong. Pro-choicer engage in this every day. Trying to change evil for good, takes courage and you have to be willing to engage. They won't.

Abortion is not murder, by definition. Nobody knows it. Some imagine it, despite objective facts showing them to be wrong. And I find it laughable that you try to tell me what pro-choicers do when you repeatedly criticise me for telling you what pro-lifers do. Why is it an insult when I do it, but quite permissible when you do it?

Again, the SLED issue is irrelevant to whether or not abortion is murder. Where it is illegal, by definition, abortion cannot be murder because murder is illegal killing.

It's not irrelevant, its a fact. You look away from these facts because you don't like how they defeat your argument.

It is completely irrelevant. What the Germans did is completely irrelevant to whether or not abortion is murder. You have said nothing that defeats my argument - you've said little so far that's even relevant. And so far I've not even made an argument - I've just pointed out your repeated falsehoods.

It's not irrelevant. It's you refusing to see wholesale slaughter when it is supposedly legal.

More ad hominem and obviously false. It is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with abortion or the current definition of murder. The fact that there has been wholesale slaughter when it was legal is completely irrelevant to the fact that abortion is not murder.

Try to understand this. Murder, by definition, requires illegal killing. If something is legal, it cannot be murder. The fact that millions have been killed when doing so was not legally murder has nothing to do with it. It doesn't change the fact that murder requires illegality, which is what the issue is.

You said countless times, if it's legal, then an act is acceptable to you.

Have I? Please cite one. Just one.

You can't, of course, because I have nowhere said, suggested or implied this. That I have is a blatant lie. Why can you not actually discuss the issue honestly?

Unless, I'm mistaken, thou shalt not murder is still in the Book.

More complete irrelevancy. Why would you think an atheist would care what's in "the Book"?

But even if it weren't, I have already demonstrated factually that outrageous shameful behavior and crimes against humanity were legal.

Which was pointless since everybody knew it and it is completely irrelevant to the issue.

Killing one's child is a heinous act.

Yup. It's illegal and people go to jail for it.

60 million deaths IS a crime against humanity even if you refuse to see it.

60 million abortions is not a crime against anybody even if you imagine it is.

Then you should stop doing it. You do have a need to do so.

Ad hominem, unsupported. I've no need to wiggle out of anything.

I don't believe that you are handicapped in any way, so the entire idea that you don't think the results of shameful law is important reveals how badly you want to be right.

...and more inventing things. Please try to discuss the issue honestly. I have nowhere said, implied or suggested that I "don't think the results of shameful law is important". And the accusation of "you want to be right" is particularly laughable. We both believe we are right. If we didn't we wouldn't be discussing the issue. You "want to be right" just as much as I.

Again, you were the person who wants to equate legal with acceptable.

See above. That is false and you cannot support it.

Don't say things that you can't take back.

You should remember that as you make up your falsehoods about me - two so far in this post. Isn't honesty something 'Christians' are supposed to value?

It has everything to do with abortion. Killing a baby is legal or it is not. The fact that you don't see this is well, disturbing. believe that you believe this, but you are wrong. It's a frame of mind.

Killing a baby is illegal as everybody knows and nobody disputes. We are talking about abortion. Which is legal.

Broad sweeping statement, for which you provide no evidence. You just don't like it.

The evidence is your complete lack of an argument.

Let's review. Thus far your 'argument' has consisted of:
- we saw a particularly repugnant women who had an abortion
- definitions of words change
- abortion is too murder, itisitisitis
- horrific slaughter of human beings has been done throughout history and, under the laws at that place and time, it was not murder
- invented falsehoods about what I think

There's not an actual argument there - you demonstrate the truth of my 'broad sweeping statement'.

We finally agree.

Not for long, I'm sure.

You don't want to see the connection between abortion and dead babies. But the facts are these. Abortions result in dead babies.

No, it doesn't. It results in dead fetuses.

Some states will allow a full term newborn to die by neglecting it. Yet pro-choice people agree, this is acceptable. Though I will concede that some shrink back in horror, but not enough horror to do anything about it. Silence is insidious.

Firstly, this is irrelevant to the issue, as it is not abortion, and it is abortion we are discussing.

Secondly, you make an unsupported claim that pro-choice people agree that "this is acceptable" - and then you change your mind and admit that some don't think it's acceptable.

Then you throw out the non-sequiture that silence is insidious.

None of this has anything to do with the issue.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell didn't even worry about neglecting a full term birth, he snipped their spinal cord to sever it from the cerebellum which is the breathing center of the body. Class act, right? Mom doesn't want to have a baby, Gosnell murders it in cold blood. It's her choice, he obliges. It's nothing short of appalling.

Once again, nothing to do with the issue. The behaviour of one doctor is no comment on pro-choicers as a whole, just like the behaviour of Paul Hill is no comment on pro-lifers as a whole.

It sounds like, though you did not explicitly say, that you are willing to put your child in the hands of government workers instead of a good home.

Here's a clue - if it "sounds like" something to you, it's probably not the case. You are better off asking me to find out what I think rather than inventing (yet again!) a position for me and arguing against it.

I'm not willing to do that. Look at congress behaving like a bunch of two-year old's having tantrum after tantrum. They aren't even a fit role model. They lie, they cheat, they manipulate, they plot the downfall of others and enact shameful legislation. Feel free to turn your kids over to that, but I won't be following that example.

Strawman, irrelevant.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Part the Second

More importantly, you have DEMONSTRATED that didn't even read the article properly. Because if you had, you would know that no woman wrote that article.

No, I haven't DEMONSTRATED anything of the kind. I just re-read it and it nowhere says, implies or suggests that the author is not a woman. The only place it is mentioned is in the byline. You're wrong again.

I'm not in favor of sex education for children any more than I am in favor of Trannies in the Kindergarten classroom.

Of course you're not. That would actually lower the abortion rate. Much more important to keep children ignorant than lower the abortion rate.

Got any evidence for children suffering? I do, it hurts to be torn from limb to limb.

When knowledge is kept from people or forbidden, everybody suffers. Every teen who suffers an unwanted pregnancy or contracts an STD is suffering because, in part, of the lack of sex education.

I provided the facts. It's not my fault that you don't check them. Are you afraid of what you will find if you took the time to see for yourself.

Oh, you provide facts. It's just that none of them are relevant. Please point out a single fact you have provided that is (a) relevant to the discussion and (b) not common knowledge.

"Bull". Is that what you think will prove your opinion?

No. It's a comment on the truthfulness of your claim.

Surveys, in general are not part of statistical data. They are loaded with language that aim to get a result they want. This is not science, rather merchandizing. Even statistics can be used to prove anything one wants to prove.

lol...ironic from someone who claims that I want to avoid the facts because they don't say what I want them to.

You couched it in "some" adolescents.

Umm...yes. And?

Are you not a parent? Trust me, little boys and girls know about sex. They don't have ability to discriminate between facts and fiction, but they do know about sex.

No, they don't. You even admit it - they don't have the ability to discriminate between facts and fiction. They believe things like you can't get pregnant the very first time and you can't get pregnant if you do it standing up. Which is why we need actual sex education to dispell these falsehoods.

I don't believe most adolescents can understand the anatomy well enough to understand what abortifacients are.

Then you have an extremely low opinion of adolescents. There is zero reason they they could not understand exactly what they are and what they do - which they would learn in a good sex education class, which you and your ilk fight against.

If you do, then I can only suggest that perhaps you don't either. I'll be happy to listen to you explain how oral contraceptives work, and how IUD's work. You'll need to provide the side effects of both. This should be easy for you, but not a 15 year old child.

Of course it's easy for a 15 year old child who has been taught it. You want to keep them ignorant of the facts and then cite as an argument in your favour that they are ignorant of the facts. That's laughable.

I don't know how this works where you live, but most every place I know of don't allow adolescents to buy a beer, smoke a cigarette, etc.

Which (yet again, surprise, surprise) is completely irrelevant.

Child psychology teaches that adolescents are impulsive, slow to evaluate information and not generally responsible for their actions. That's why we have Family Courts. They also teach the most folks aren't fully developed cognitively until their mid-20's. Go look it up. I won't mind a bit.

Still more irrelevancies.

To a pro-choice advocate I would think that you would know all about abortifacients. Yet you don't.

...and back to inventing things about me. You have absolutely zero idea what I know about abortifacients.

If you want to promote such things, you should know that they can be dangerous. In general, they don't cause any problems, but still, you don't even want to know the science behind it.

...and yet another falsehood you invented. Can you not actually argue honestly? Why not invent that I'm a chainsaw killer as well? That might help your argument.

Ever heard of DES? It was prescribed legally for many years to pregnancy. It was finally taken off the market because horrible birth defects resulted. A derivative of it is still used today for entirely different purposes. Yet people took it willingly because science said it would help them.

I should program a macro to type the word 'irrelevant'.

We have already discussed the availability of condoms to teenagers. Most schools pass them out like candy. Abortifacients are a different story completely. The fact that you object, has no bearing on the truth of the matter.

The fact that I object to what? I do not understand your point here.

No they aren't. The framers never believed that our labor should even be taxed. But they did give Congress the power to draft new law. That is why most American's work until almost August each year to pay for federal taxes, state taxes, county taxes, city taxes, school taxes, phone taxes, Entertainment taxes and this doesn't even address taxes and fees on car registrations, traffic lanes, tolls. I love my country but this is bordering on tyranny. Promoting the general welfare does not mean providing free healthcare, free rent, free entertainment, free food, free phones.

Okay, not interested in a little rant about taxation.

Yes, they do. 60 million babies is a crime against humanity. That you don't see it that way, doesn't make it any less true.

60 million abortions is not a crime against anybody. That you don't see it that way doesn't make it any less true.

Yet, you have not proven even 1 of these.

Your posts prove them. Every time.

And here we have it, blaming all pro-life groups for insisting that we don't murder children says it all.

I don't even understand what this is supposed to mean.

Your argument dismisses the harm done, because you likely don't want it to be harmful. It is.

My argument doesn't dismiss anything.

All you have is opinion. You have not provided one fact. Though I do give you credit for trying with the 'surveys'.

All anybody has is opinion. Pointing it out is useless. We've already gone through the paucity of your 'argument'.

You are essentially dismissing the facts of abortion, because you don't like them.

Completely false and unsupported.

Murder is punishable by law.

Well done. For once you used the word 'murder' in a sentence correctly.

You are going to have to do better. Much, much better

Ad hominem. And no, I'm not. I don't expect to change your mind, just as you will not change mind. I don't have to do anything. And your evaluation of the strength of my argument means less to me than you can possibly imagine.

And I notice that when I give my actual core argument (since most of my posts are dedicated to dispelling your falsehoods) you simple ignore it.

There you go again with the insults and personal attacks. "your ilk". You just can't provide a response without doing this. When you engage in this, you have lost the argument. Sad really.

This is what I said. You finish this part of the discussion with name-calling.

You did engage in name calling, just as you have done here multiple times.

I don't name-call and I do my best not too insult anyone. I don't always succeed, but I try.

I love it, more insults "Your ilk posture and preen"

Doesn't it bother you to use personal attacks? Again, it's the sign of a failed argument.

I grouped all of these whines here so I could address them in one place. I used no personal attacks. I used no insults. I called no names. If you believe I did, then report me, as insults are against the forum rules. And I think that you think that the word 'ilk' means something it doesn't, since you seem to view it as insulting.

 

[Temujin]

This is the model we use. I think that many people have already seen it.

Yep. Seen it before and dismissed it as irrelevant misdirection. I'm happy to do so again.

The SLED Model

To further show that the unborn fetus is a human being, let’s introduce the SLED model, an acronym that stands for:

S – Size. The unborn fetus is smaller than an infant and most people are shorter than 7-foot basketball star Rudy Gobert. However, rational people would not claim that the infant is more valuable than the fetus nor is Rudy worth more than a teenage girl. In addition, a sumo wrestler does not have more value than a trapeze artist. Therefore, size does not indicate one’s worth.

Completely irrelevant, as size is not used as an argument against the pro-life position. Admittedly, the idea of calling an object the size of a grain of rice (a great many abortions are done before this size is even reached), a baby, is fairly ridiculous. It rather devalues the notion of what a baby actually is.

L – Level of Development. The unborn fetus is at an earlier stage of his or her development than a newborn baby, but an eight-year-old child is less developed (both physically and mentally) than an adolescent. Older, stronger, more intelligent humans do not have more dignity and fundamental rights than those who are younger, weaker, less intelligent, and more vulnerable. To use the acorn analogy, an acorn is not a “potential” oak tree but rather a tiny living oak tree inside a shell. It is at the same level of development that every oak tree once existed during that particular stage of life.

The homunculus theory was exploded many years ago. This part of the model relies on the assumption that a human being should be regarded as such, whatever state of its development. It is certainly true that biologically this is the same organism, but social norms and abortion law in particular are not driven by biology. Nor should they be. Human beings are treated as such, accorded human rights, protected by law and convention, because they are members of human society. To become a member of human society, you have to be born. The archetypal blob of cells on a petri dish in an IVF clinic is not a member of human society. It may become one. For your argument to work, you need to show a reason why human society should extend its membership to the unborn, particularly the very newly formed and under-developed unborn. Why exactly should a human embryo, indistinguishable by eye from the embryo of any other mammal, be treated as a person?

E – Environment. A journey through a birth canal cannot account for a change in a child’s rights. Location does not affect personhood. A child in the womb or outside the womb is still a human being.

The changes to the human organism at birth are profound. The change in location is the least significant. It is dishonest to focus purely on this and ignore the other changes.

D – Degree of Dependency. The unborn fetus is totally dependent on the mother for life through the umbilical cord, but newborn babies are also fully dependent. A baby left to herself will die within hours unless she is attended to and her needs met. In fact, everyone relies on other people and things to some degree. We don’t question the personhood of those who are dependent on kidney machines, insulin, or pacemakers. Elderly people in a nursing home who have to be fed are no less valuable than the person who is feeding them.

It is not the level of dependency that is at issue, but it's focus on one individual. Once born, a baby can be cared for by anyone. Until then it is dependent on, and only on, its mother. If she is unable or unwilling to provide that care, then forcing her to do so is an imposition on her, a removal of her rights to her own body. You have made no attempt to show why that should be permissable or a better outcome morally than abortion.

The syllogism

Premise 1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.

Premise 2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.

Therefore, Abortion is morally wrong.

Let’s consider each point:

Premise 1: The key words in the first premise is “intentionally kill.” The Bible is clear that “thou shalt not kill (murder).” A detractor might try to bring up “wartime” situations. But the enemy of your country would not be considered an “innocent human being.” The soldier behind the enemy line is trying to kill you first, which is how warfare works. Or if someone breaks into your house and brandishes a kitchen knife on his approach to stab you, most people would support your right to defend yourself by shooting him with your gun.

As you point out, there are occasions when it is permitted, even encouraged to kill other human beings. There are many other circumstances that you do not mention. The "innocence" of the victim is by the by, since this is not always apparent at the time of the killing and does not affect whether the killing is justified or not. Your premise therefore should read:
Premise 1: It is wrong to intentionally kill human beings except in certain circumstances.
Abortion is one of these circumstances

Premise 2: By definition, abortion is taking the life of an innocent unborn fetus that, if there was no abortion, would have lived.

Firstly, you have not established that the foetus is a "human being" and therefore covered by the premise. Pro-choice advocates would say not. The current laws in my country and yours say not. You don't get to slide that assumption through without evidence or discussion. Secondly "innocent"? Is a rock innocent? Innocence and guilt imply the capacity to choose between them. That is why young children are never guilty of criminal behaviour. To apply innocence to a being with no cerebral cortex is ludicrous. If you mean that the foetus has not committed any criminal act, then this is already implied in the definition of the term "foetus". Just as not committing any traffic violations is implicit in the term "tree". You are just trying to smuggle in an emotion laden word, innocence, in an attempt to bolster an argument that fundamentally relies on emotion rather than reason.
Premise 2 fails completely.

Conclusion: If the unborn fetus is innocent, as shown in the two premises, then killing an innocent human being (the fetus) is wrong, for all people, in all times, and in all places. This is not a morally relativistic choice.

As the foetus is neither innocent nor guilty, nor even established in this context as a human being, your conclusion doesn't even apply to it. Furthermore, since there are circumstances when innocent human beings can be killed, both morally and legally, then whether abortion should be included as one of these circumstances is a choice. A choice made on the one hand by legislators representing society at large and on the other by individuals. Killing the foetus is not necessarily wrong in all circumstances. Indeed it is not necessarily wrong in any circumstances. The wrongness is determined by legislation regarding the legality and by individual conscience regarding the morality. In this, as in all moral issues, nothing is absolute.

Every reasonable person, including most of those who have actually had an abortion, would like to see the number of abortions decrease. Refusing to countenance sensible, cheap and accessible methods to achieve this on the grounds that not all abortions would be prevented, is not just fundamentally flawed foolishness. It is also ideological extremism, no less reprehensible than those that advocate denying girls education or throwing homosexuals from tall buildings. Abortion is a serious issue, which affects the health of society as a whole as well as the well-being of the individuals involved. It deserves serious consideration and debate. It requires serious efforts to involve all points of view and develop a strategy which as many people as possible can support.

Your post is not a serious contribution to this process.