Would It Still Be An Abortion If...

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
The rest of his post deluded and wrong?

More like EVERY ONE of his posts on this site!

Abortion supporters are masters of euphemisms. They are also masters of changing the subject. "We are pro-choice" as if choice is the issue. "We are for reproductive freedom." As if reproductive freedom is the issue. "We are for women's rights." As if women's rights are the issue. "We are for health care" as if healthcare is the issue.

They talk about everything but abortion. What abortion supporters never really get around to doing--is---talking about abortion.
The issue is choice, and reproductive freedom, and women's rights, and healthcare. All things about which conservatives couldn't give the slightest.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
When good and evil line up to do battle, sir, NO ONE can be neutral.

Neutrality, is, by definition, support of evil.
You need to learn what (a) 'neutrality' means and (b) 'by definition' means.

'Neutrality' is not and does not mean 'support of evil'. It does not mean support of anything. By definition (here's an accurate use of the term) it means support of neither side.
 

BMS

Well-known member
The majority of Christians world wide are in favour of evolution being taught because they recognise that it is accurate science.

The majority of wingnut conservative 'Christians' are against it being taught because they want their religious dogma taught instead.
Depends what you mean by Christians.
 

BMS

Well-known member
The issue is choice, and reproductive freedom, and women's rights, and healthcare. All things about which conservatives couldn't give the slightest.
Abortion isnt 'reproductive' choice though. Reproductive choice is conception.
Abortion is the choice to murder the offspring.
 

BMS

Well-known member
You need to learn what (a) 'neutrality' means and (b) 'by definition' means.

'Neutrality' is not and does not mean 'support of evil'. It does not mean support of anything. By definition (here's an accurate use of the term) it means support of neither side.
lets undestand definitions have already been changed to accomodate the lie of gender identity before you try and use definitions.
Lets just sort out how you cant apply the definition of murder to illegal abortion before we evaluate definitions.
Dont try and run before you can walk
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
You need to learn what (a) 'neutrality' means and (b) 'by definition' means.

'Neutrality' is not and does not mean 'support of evil'. It does not mean support of anything. By definition (here's an accurate use of the term) it means support of neither side.
Sir, if I see a racist beating up on a minority, and I claim to be "neutral" and do nothing to help the minority, since it does not involve me, I have chosen the side of the racist.

Stop playing semantics. Save that for lawyers.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
The issue is choice, and reproductive freedom, and women's rights, and healthcare. All things about which conservatives couldn't give the slightest.
Yes--you just proved my point with your euphemisms. And I get it. You MUST speak this way. Pro-abortion people can't just say they are pro-abortion! Who would support it then?

You can speak in all the euphemisms you want--but pro-lifers are not going to let you get away with it. We will be there and force abortion supporters to talk about abortion. The media refuses to think critically and ask serious questions. Well--the media is not here on this site to bail you people out. We will keep you on point and not let you change the subject.

The issue, sir, is, and always has been ABORTION.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
And if you drive you are consenting to having a crash despite the fact that you do not want to crash.
If you drive you are consenting to the POSSIBILITY of a crash, yes. In other words--the activity of driving does involve the possibility, however small, or a crash. So I am assuming the risk.

However, all things being equal, a crash is NOT the natural result of driving. A crash happens when something goes wrong. It is not supposed to happen. The purpose of driving is NOT to crash.

Sex is different. The whole purpose of sex is reproduction. When a pregnancy results from sex, nothing went wrong. Everything went right. That is what is supposed to happen. When a woman consents to sex, she consents to pregnancy. And even IF this was in anyway like your crash analaogy, fine. When a woman has sex, she chooses to assume the risk of a pregnancy.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Just the point: forced pregnancy supporters keep focusing on the wrong thing: the fetus!
But that ISN'T the wrong thing to focus on!

How about this: why not abort the woman? How about that? How would the woman like it if her unborn child could choose to abort her?
What they should be focusing is on the woman. It is her body that is the object and victim of the abortion, not the fetus.
The woman is a victim of the abortion? So the woman dies? Her unborn child does not die, it is the woman who dies in an abortion?

This is what I love about liberals. The woman is the victim. You see the person who does not die from the procedure as the victim. Liberals more and more are loosing touch with reality. I was listening to a leftist the other day state that if a man refuses to date a transgender man--that is--a man who "became" a woman through surgery, that man is transphobic. No, the man is not transphobic. It is just that--the man is not gay.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Yes--you just proved my point with your euphemisms. And I get it. You MUST speak this way. Pro-abortion people can't just say they are pro-abortion! Who would support it then?
Thank you for proving the point. Almost nobody is pro-abortion, which is why no-one supports that position. The majority however, support pro-choice. So might you, if you understood it correctly. A great many Christians do.

You can speak in all the euphemisms you want--but pro-lifers are not going to let you get away with it. We will be there and force abortion supporters to talk about abortion. The media refuses to think critically and ask serious questions. Well--the media is not here on this site to bail you people out. We will keep you on point and not let you change the subject.
The issue, sir, is, and always has been ABORTION.
Quite right, which amongst other things includes: choice, and reproductive freedom, and women's rights, and healthcare. You don't want to talk about these things because you have already lost the argument on them. Instead you want to talk about murder and infanticide. Well tough, the subject is abortion, and your wriggling won't stop us holding you to the point. Talk about abortion instead of skulking behind claptrap falsehoods.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Thank you for proving the point. Almost nobody is pro-abortion, which is why no-one supports that position.
Why? What is wrong with it? You can't have your cake and eat it, sir. If a child does not die when a woman "terminates" her pregnancy, then who would care about it? Why not be for it?
The majority however, support pro-choice. So might you, if you understood it correctly. A great many Christians do.
Sir, let's be clear: a great many people who CLAIM to be Christian support abortion. No true Christian supports abortion, sir.
Quite right, which amongst other things includes: choice, and reproductive freedom, and women's rights, and healthcare.
No one has a problem with any of that. It is ABORTION that we pro-lifers have a problem with.
You don't want to talk about these things because you have already lost the argument on them.
Oh? Sir, I am not the one trying to redefine terms and change the parameters of the debate. YOU ARE. People who win debates do not need to change the parameters of the debate, redefine terms and speak in euphemisms.
Instead you want to talk about murder and infanticide.
Exactly! You are catching on!
Well tough, the subject is abortion,
Yes it is. The subject is murder and infanticide. THAT is what abortion IS.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Why? What is wrong with it? You can't have your cake and eat it, sir. If a child does not die when a woman "terminates" her pregnancy, then who would care about it? Why not be for it?
For the same reason that people are not pro-amputation or pro- chemotherapy.

Sir, let's be clear: a great many people who CLAIM to be Christian support abortion. No true Christian supports abortion, sir.
On what do you base this ridiculous claim? Are you the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury rolled into one? Who gave you the right to declare who is or is not a Christian? Four hundred years ago you would have been standing next to the stake, slavering and holding a torch.

No one has a problem with any of that. It is ABORTION that we pro-lifers have a problem with.
And it is the prohibition of the ability to choose abortion that we pro-choice advocates have a problem with.

Oh? Sir, I am not the one trying to redefine terms and change the parameters of the debate. YOU ARE.
If you try and call abortion, murder and/or infanticide, this is precisely what you are doing.
People who win debates do not need to change the parameters of the debate, redefine terms and speak in euphemisms.
From which you can tell that you have lost the debate and we have won it.
Yes it is. The subject is murder and infanticide. THAT is what abortion IS.
Thank you. The changed parameter and euphemism which you yourself declared is the mark of a lost argument. Please collect your loser's medal on the way out.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
For the same reason that people are not pro-amputation or pro- chemotherapy.
Huh? I am pro-amputation, pro-chemotherapy when it is necessary to save someone's life.
On what do you base this ridiculous claim? Are you the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury rolled into one? Who gave you the right to declare who is or is not a Christian? Four hundred years ago you would have been standing next to the stake, slavering and holding a torch.
Those who are Christian follow and live the commandments of God. Thus, being a true Christian speaks for itself.
And it is the prohibition of the ability to choose abortion that we pro-choice advocates have a problem with.

If you try and call abortion, murder and/or infanticide, this is precisely what you are doing.
Because that is what it is----when you cut through the euphemisms that is.
From which you can tell that you have lost the debate and we have won it.

Thank you. The changed parameter and euphemism which you yourself declared is the mark of a lost argument. Please collect your loser's medal on the way out.
Sir, you are the one who needs to go back to the JV debate team, not me.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Huh? I am pro-amputation, pro-chemotherapy when it is necessary to save someone's life.
So am I. I still consider them to be a necessary but not desirable outcome. The lesser of two evils. The least worst outcome. Just like abortion.

Those who are Christian follow and live the commandments of God. Thus, being a true Christian speaks for itself.
So please show the commandment from. God not to kill the unborn foetus.

Because that is what it is----when you cut through the euphemisms that is.

Sir, you are the one who needs to go back to the JV debate team, not me.
Please show some, indeed any, evidence for this claim, other than your personal opinion.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
So am I. I still consider them to be a necessary but not desirable outcome. The lesser of two evils. The least bad outcome. Just like abortion.
The woman loses something if she needs an amputation and suffers if she needs chemo.

What is the woman losing in an abortion from your view?
So please show the commandment from. God not to kill the unborn fetus.
The fifth commandment is clear: "Thou shall not kill."
 

BMS

Well-known member
Just like driving a car is consent to crashing. It's what happens.
It is a possibility but one takes precautions. If one doesn't take contraceptives one might get pregnant. If conception occurs a new life has been created, cant change that, and one cant change a car crash so that it hasnt happened.

But the primary purpose of sexual intimacy between a man and a woman is reproduction, so you cant object, its what happens. You can object to car crashes because the main purpose of the car is transport.

Not sure why you object to reality
 

BMS

Well-known member
So am I. I still consider them to be a necessary but not desirable outcome. The lesser of two evils. The least worst outcome. Just like abortion.

So please show the commandment from. God not to kill the unborn foetus.

Please show some, indeed any, evidence for this claim, other than your personal opinion.
Because its not the unborn foetus to God. The human being begins life at conception. Adam yada Eve and she conceived and gave birth to Cain.
Humans attribute stages of development, such as zygote, embryo and foetal.

So we cant show you something from God that you have made contrary to God. Dont be so obtuse
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
It is a possibility but one takes precautions. If one doesn't take contraceptives one might get pregnant. If conception occurs a new life has been created, cant change that, and one cant change a car crash so that it hasnt happened.

But the primary purpose of sexual intimacy between a man and a woman is reproduction, so you cant object, its what happens. You can object to car crashes because the main purpose of the car is transport.

Not sure why you object to reality
Abortion supporters for reasons that defy logic, seem unable to make the connection between sex and pregnancy.

Quite frankly, I find people on the left to be intelligent----that is to say----book smart, but lacking in common sense. That, I would say is the biggest problem with people on the left----they have absolutely no common sense.

Those on the left object to reality---because it tends to get in the way of their passions and appetites. Those on the left think one's passions and appetites are what define reality, rather than reality defining their passions and appetites.

Thus-----because the left wants sex to be nothing more than a pleasurable act between one or more consenting adults, and NOT for reproduction, they just refuse to see the connection between sex and pregnancy--and act--as though reproduction is incidental to sex at best, and at worst--bears no connection to sex.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
Top