The Abortion Thread

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:
(personal) Question(s): Has anyone in this thread been involved with a woman/girl who has had an abortion?

Does anyone have any real experience with the subject matter? [/quote]

I haven’t been with any, I have known them though. One was bat shit crazy…[/quote]

And I’m the King of France.[/quote]

Then, your pro-abortion stance is quite excusable.
You just spent 219 years without a head, after all.
[/quote]

Pro choice. Not pro abortion.[/quote]

No. If support the ‘choice’ to abort, you are pro-abortion. You’re just trying to make it sound prettier, it’s not it’s ugly.[/quote]

Just like how if the choice is to not abort, you are anti-abortion. Oh wait, that’s retarded because it’s too ad-hoc to accurately describe the pro-choice position…

Well at least your title is accurate; pro-life… except when it comes to killing ‘terrorists’ and certain criminals… hmm perhaps you are the ones just trying to make your position sound prettier. [/quote]

I am very anti-abortion.

Introducing terrorists and criminals is a Red Herring. And you don’t know my position on that.[/quote]

It’s not a red herring, it’s very much relevant. You cannot call yourself pro-life if you’re only pro-life when it suits you. You didn’t deny that you support the death penalty, so I assume you do and only brought up that you haven’t made a stand either way as a talking point.

You are ‘anti-abortion’, in the same way I’m ‘pro-choice’-of-whether-or-not-to-get-an-abortion. You are always against abortion, while I am always for the choice, the open option, without legal repercussions. They are equal terms.

You can change your terminology as you will, but then the rules change and I have to change my terminology accordingly. [/quote]

I do not support the death penalty. However, the death penalty is not in the conversation…

1.2 million > 20. When the numbers of abortions become as little as the death penalty, I will give it it’s due attention. Abortion is a way bigger problem. The death penalty is morally wrong, in most cases.

And it’s still a Red Herring…[/quote]

So it’s a matter of numbers for you? Interesting.

Also, you say “in most cases”, meaning it’s not always morally wrong?

Finally, I’ve given my reason as to why it’s not a red herring. If you want to prove it is otherwise you’ll have to carry the idea farther than the declarative stage.[/quote]

Numbers do matter. Both are morally wrong, and if all else are equal then they deserve equal attention. But all else is not equal. Death penalty is rarely used, abortion happens every 3 seconds.

It is a red herring because you were trying to divert the topic from abortion being murder, to trying to prove I had an inconsistent stance on life. Even if I had an inconsistent stance on life, it still wouldn’t change the fact that abortion is murder.

I meant ‘in most cases’ because a state has a right and a duty to protect it’s citizens. For instance, sometimes you have people who are leaders or some such, whose existence can stir up followers to do harm or to try and rescue, him or something like that. In such a case, the need to rid the populous of such a risk is greater than need to preserve the other guy’s life.

Think about Bin Laden for instance, taking him in to custody could be a disaster. Terrorist acts or attempted rescues would have been a distinct possibility, hence killing him was the better option.
This type of thing is very, very rare of course, but it’s an exception to the rule that must be accounted for.[/quote]

Wrong. Abortion being murder is a given, that’s not what I’m arguing about. My entire effort is to reveal contradictions in your philosophy, so there is no red herring. Ironically, in your attempt to pull a red herring out of my argument, you’ve committed a red herring.
[/quote]
So your stance is that abortion is murder, but that it’s ok to do anyway? That’s interesting and honest and I appreciate that.
I haven’t presented any contradictions in my arguments though. You were pulling from a stereotype where you assumed I was a “typical republican” and against abortion and for the death penalty. That’s simply not the case. Further, you introduced these things, I did not. I was talking about abortion and it’s wrongness because it’s the taking of a human life. From that I have not wavered not one little tiny bit.

[quote]

So, if I understand you correctly, you contend that killing can be moral so long as it serves the ‘greater good’, so to speak? [/quote]

No I do not contend that killing is “moral” at best it’s a morally neutral act. I cannot for see a scenario where killing is a ‘good’ thing, but just in case I will leave it open as a remote possibility.
Sometimes, there really isn’t a choice. If your family is in danger, or there is imminent threat, then you have to protect yourself and others if you are able to do so. Likewise, if there is a scenario where the mother’s life is in danger because of the pregnancy, she really doesn’t have much of a choice other than to abort. These aren’t morally “good”, they are just necessary which makes them neutral.[/quote]

Of course I introduced these things. I don’t see your point. If there is ever a case where you are okay (even if not gung-ho) with killing, then calling yourself pro-life isn’t accurate. Equally as inaccurate as calling me pro-abortion, in fact. That’s the point I want to establish.

Anyway, from what I gather, you contend that ‘necessary evils’, so to speak, are morally neutral actions. You also give life or death examples of these morally neutral actions. My question to you is, can you think of any such situation where killing is morally neutral even if it’s not a ‘kill or be killed’ scenario?

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Why does something necessarily have to be made illegal if its morally wrong? I don’t see the problem with keeping it legal in this case even if 99% of people think its immoral as murder.[/quote]

Doesn’t that line of reasoning then question why murder itself is illegal? [/quote]

Not at all, I think that has been discussed in here before.[/quote]

So let me get this strait, if abortion is considered analogous to murder and is morally wrong on that basis, then abortion, though morally wrong can remain legal while murder, can still be illegal, though considered the same?
Am I missing something?

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:
(personal) Question(s): Has anyone in this thread been involved with a woman/girl who has had an abortion?

Does anyone have any real experience with the subject matter? [/quote]

I haven’t been with any, I have known them though. One was bat shit crazy…[/quote]

And I’m the King of France.[/quote]

Then, your pro-abortion stance is quite excusable.
You just spent 219 years without a head, after all.
[/quote]

Pro choice. Not pro abortion.[/quote]

No. If support the ‘choice’ to abort, you are pro-abortion. You’re just trying to make it sound prettier, it’s not it’s ugly.[/quote]

Just like how if the choice is to not abort, you are anti-abortion. Oh wait, that’s retarded because it’s too ad-hoc to accurately describe the pro-choice position…

Well at least your title is accurate; pro-life… except when it comes to killing ‘terrorists’ and certain criminals… hmm perhaps you are the ones just trying to make your position sound prettier. [/quote]

I am very anti-abortion.

Introducing terrorists and criminals is a Red Herring. And you don’t know my position on that.[/quote]

It’s not a red herring, it’s very much relevant. You cannot call yourself pro-life if you’re only pro-life when it suits you. You didn’t deny that you support the death penalty, so I assume you do and only brought up that you haven’t made a stand either way as a talking point.

You are ‘anti-abortion’, in the same way I’m ‘pro-choice’-of-whether-or-not-to-get-an-abortion. You are always against abortion, while I am always for the choice, the open option, without legal repercussions. They are equal terms.

You can change your terminology as you will, but then the rules change and I have to change my terminology accordingly. [/quote]

I do not support the death penalty. However, the death penalty is not in the conversation…

1.2 million > 20. When the numbers of abortions become as little as the death penalty, I will give it it’s due attention. Abortion is a way bigger problem. The death penalty is morally wrong, in most cases.

And it’s still a Red Herring…[/quote]

So it’s a matter of numbers for you? Interesting.

Also, you say “in most cases”, meaning it’s not always morally wrong?

Finally, I’ve given my reason as to why it’s not a red herring. If you want to prove it is otherwise you’ll have to carry the idea farther than the declarative stage.[/quote]

Numbers do matter. Both are morally wrong, and if all else are equal then they deserve equal attention. But all else is not equal. Death penalty is rarely used, abortion happens every 3 seconds.

It is a red herring because you were trying to divert the topic from abortion being murder, to trying to prove I had an inconsistent stance on life. Even if I had an inconsistent stance on life, it still wouldn’t change the fact that abortion is murder.

I meant ‘in most cases’ because a state has a right and a duty to protect it’s citizens. For instance, sometimes you have people who are leaders or some such, whose existence can stir up followers to do harm or to try and rescue, him or something like that. In such a case, the need to rid the populous of such a risk is greater than need to preserve the other guy’s life.

Think about Bin Laden for instance, taking him in to custody could be a disaster. Terrorist acts or attempted rescues would have been a distinct possibility, hence killing him was the better option.
This type of thing is very, very rare of course, but it’s an exception to the rule that must be accounted for.[/quote]

Wrong. Abortion being murder is a given, that’s not what I’m arguing about. My entire effort is to reveal contradictions in your philosophy, so there is no red herring. Ironically, in your attempt to pull a red herring out of my argument, you’ve committed a red herring.
[/quote]
So your stance is that abortion is murder, but that it’s ok to do anyway? That’s interesting and honest and I appreciate that.
I haven’t presented any contradictions in my arguments though. You were pulling from a stereotype where you assumed I was a “typical republican” and against abortion and for the death penalty. That’s simply not the case. Further, you introduced these things, I did not. I was talking about abortion and it’s wrongness because it’s the taking of a human life. From that I have not wavered not one little tiny bit.

Man, that’s a tortured round-a-bout way of trying to avoid the pro-abortion label. If you are for abortion, then you are pro-abortion, period. You can call me pro-life or anti-abortion, I don’t really care.
Trying to assert that I am not “pro-life” because in some extreme cases killing may be necessary is a bit of a reach, but whatever.

[quote]

Anyway, from what I gather, you contend that ‘necessary evils’, so to speak, are morally neutral actions. You also give life or death examples of these morally neutral actions. My question to you is, can you think of any such situation where killing is morally neutral even if it’s not a ‘kill or be killed’ scenario?[/quote]
Grievous harm, such as rape, torture, etc. would qualify.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:
(personal) Question(s): Has anyone in this thread been involved with a woman/girl who has had an abortion?

Does anyone have any real experience with the subject matter? [/quote]

I haven’t been with any, I have known them though. One was bat shit crazy…[/quote]

And I’m the King of France.[/quote]

Then, your pro-abortion stance is quite excusable.
You just spent 219 years without a head, after all.
[/quote]

Pro choice. Not pro abortion.[/quote]

No. If support the ‘choice’ to abort, you are pro-abortion. You’re just trying to make it sound prettier, it’s not it’s ugly.[/quote]

Just like how if the choice is to not abort, you are anti-abortion. Oh wait, that’s retarded because it’s too ad-hoc to accurately describe the pro-choice position…

Well at least your title is accurate; pro-life… except when it comes to killing ‘terrorists’ and certain criminals… hmm perhaps you are the ones just trying to make your position sound prettier. [/quote]

I am very anti-abortion.

Introducing terrorists and criminals is a Red Herring. And you don’t know my position on that.[/quote]

It’s not a red herring, it’s very much relevant. You cannot call yourself pro-life if you’re only pro-life when it suits you. You didn’t deny that you support the death penalty, so I assume you do and only brought up that you haven’t made a stand either way as a talking point.

You are ‘anti-abortion’, in the same way I’m ‘pro-choice’-of-whether-or-not-to-get-an-abortion. You are always against abortion, while I am always for the choice, the open option, without legal repercussions. They are equal terms.

You can change your terminology as you will, but then the rules change and I have to change my terminology accordingly. [/quote]

I do not support the death penalty. However, the death penalty is not in the conversation…

1.2 million > 20. When the numbers of abortions become as little as the death penalty, I will give it it’s due attention. Abortion is a way bigger problem. The death penalty is morally wrong, in most cases.

And it’s still a Red Herring…[/quote]

So it’s a matter of numbers for you? Interesting.

Also, you say “in most cases”, meaning it’s not always morally wrong?

Finally, I’ve given my reason as to why it’s not a red herring. If you want to prove it is otherwise you’ll have to carry the idea farther than the declarative stage.[/quote]

Numbers do matter. Both are morally wrong, and if all else are equal then they deserve equal attention. But all else is not equal. Death penalty is rarely used, abortion happens every 3 seconds.

It is a red herring because you were trying to divert the topic from abortion being murder, to trying to prove I had an inconsistent stance on life. Even if I had an inconsistent stance on life, it still wouldn’t change the fact that abortion is murder.

I meant ‘in most cases’ because a state has a right and a duty to protect it’s citizens. For instance, sometimes you have people who are leaders or some such, whose existence can stir up followers to do harm or to try and rescue, him or something like that. In such a case, the need to rid the populous of such a risk is greater than need to preserve the other guy’s life.

Think about Bin Laden for instance, taking him in to custody could be a disaster. Terrorist acts or attempted rescues would have been a distinct possibility, hence killing him was the better option.
This type of thing is very, very rare of course, but it’s an exception to the rule that must be accounted for.[/quote]

Wrong. Abortion being murder is a given, that’s not what I’m arguing about. My entire effort is to reveal contradictions in your philosophy, so there is no red herring. Ironically, in your attempt to pull a red herring out of my argument, you’ve committed a red herring.
[/quote]
So your stance is that abortion is murder, but that it’s ok to do anyway? That’s interesting and honest and I appreciate that.
I haven’t presented any contradictions in my arguments though. You were pulling from a stereotype where you assumed I was a “typical republican” and against abortion and for the death penalty. That’s simply not the case. Further, you introduced these things, I did not. I was talking about abortion and it’s wrongness because it’s the taking of a human life. From that I have not wavered not one little tiny bit.

Man, that’s a tortured round-a-bout way of trying to avoid the pro-abortion label. If you are for abortion, then you are pro-abortion, period. You can call me pro-life or anti-abortion, I don’t really care.
Trying to assert that I am not “pro-life” because in some extreme cases killing may be necessary is a bit of a reach, but whatever.

[quote]

Anyway, from what I gather, you contend that ‘necessary evils’, so to speak, are morally neutral actions. You also give life or death examples of these morally neutral actions. My question to you is, can you think of any such situation where killing is morally neutral even if it’s not a ‘kill or be killed’ scenario?[/quote]
Grievous harm, such as rape, torture, etc. would qualify. [/quote]

I’m pro-abortion, sure, in the same way you are anti-freedom. Do I have to explain this to you again or do you actually have a counter argument to this?

Grievous harm. Hmm. How grievous would this torture have to be?

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Why does something necessarily have to be made illegal if its morally wrong? I don’t see the problem with keeping it legal in this case even if 99% of people think its immoral as murder.[/quote]

Doesn’t that line of reasoning then question why murder itself is illegal? [/quote]

Not at all, I think that has been discussed in here before.[/quote]

So let me get this strait, if abortion is considered analogous to murder and is morally wrong on that basis, then abortion, though morally wrong can remain legal while murder, can still be illegal, though considered the same?
Am I missing something?[/quote]

It is more analogous to the death penalty which we don’t consider to be murder in our society. It is simply a consensus of the society we live in if it should be acceptable. You can never compare abortion to murder simply for the fact that murder is the unauthorized killing of something while abortion can only be done by the mother or someone given permission to do so by the mother.

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:
(personal) Question(s): Has anyone in this thread been involved with a woman/girl who has had an abortion?

Does anyone have any real experience with the subject matter? [/quote]

I haven’t been with any, I have known them though. One was bat shit crazy…[/quote]

And I’m the King of France.[/quote]

Then, your pro-abortion stance is quite excusable.
You just spent 219 years without a head, after all.
[/quote]

Pro choice. Not pro abortion.[/quote]

No. If support the ‘choice’ to abort, you are pro-abortion. You’re just trying to make it sound prettier, it’s not it’s ugly.[/quote]

Just like how if the choice is to not abort, you are anti-abortion. Oh wait, that’s retarded because it’s too ad-hoc to accurately describe the pro-choice position…

Well at least your title is accurate; pro-life… except when it comes to killing ‘terrorists’ and certain criminals… hmm perhaps you are the ones just trying to make your position sound prettier. [/quote]

I am very anti-abortion.

Introducing terrorists and criminals is a Red Herring. And you don’t know my position on that.[/quote]

It’s not a red herring, it’s very much relevant. You cannot call yourself pro-life if you’re only pro-life when it suits you. You didn’t deny that you support the death penalty, so I assume you do and only brought up that you haven’t made a stand either way as a talking point.

You are ‘anti-abortion’, in the same way I’m ‘pro-choice’-of-whether-or-not-to-get-an-abortion. You are always against abortion, while I am always for the choice, the open option, without legal repercussions. They are equal terms.

You can change your terminology as you will, but then the rules change and I have to change my terminology accordingly. [/quote]

I do not support the death penalty. However, the death penalty is not in the conversation…

1.2 million > 20. When the numbers of abortions become as little as the death penalty, I will give it it’s due attention. Abortion is a way bigger problem. The death penalty is morally wrong, in most cases.

And it’s still a Red Herring…[/quote]

So it’s a matter of numbers for you? Interesting.

Also, you say “in most cases”, meaning it’s not always morally wrong?

Finally, I’ve given my reason as to why it’s not a red herring. If you want to prove it is otherwise you’ll have to carry the idea farther than the declarative stage.[/quote]

Numbers do matter. Both are morally wrong, and if all else are equal then they deserve equal attention. But all else is not equal. Death penalty is rarely used, abortion happens every 3 seconds.

It is a red herring because you were trying to divert the topic from abortion being murder, to trying to prove I had an inconsistent stance on life. Even if I had an inconsistent stance on life, it still wouldn’t change the fact that abortion is murder.

I meant ‘in most cases’ because a state has a right and a duty to protect it’s citizens. For instance, sometimes you have people who are leaders or some such, whose existence can stir up followers to do harm or to try and rescue, him or something like that. In such a case, the need to rid the populous of such a risk is greater than need to preserve the other guy’s life.

Think about Bin Laden for instance, taking him in to custody could be a disaster. Terrorist acts or attempted rescues would have been a distinct possibility, hence killing him was the better option.
This type of thing is very, very rare of course, but it’s an exception to the rule that must be accounted for.[/quote]

Wrong. Abortion being murder is a given, that’s not what I’m arguing about. My entire effort is to reveal contradictions in your philosophy, so there is no red herring. Ironically, in your attempt to pull a red herring out of my argument, you’ve committed a red herring.
[/quote]
So your stance is that abortion is murder, but that it’s ok to do anyway? That’s interesting and honest and I appreciate that.
I haven’t presented any contradictions in my arguments though. You were pulling from a stereotype where you assumed I was a “typical republican” and against abortion and for the death penalty. That’s simply not the case. Further, you introduced these things, I did not. I was talking about abortion and it’s wrongness because it’s the taking of a human life. From that I have not wavered not one little tiny bit.

Man, that’s a tortured round-a-bout way of trying to avoid the pro-abortion label. If you are for abortion, then you are pro-abortion, period. You can call me pro-life or anti-abortion, I don’t really care.
Trying to assert that I am not “pro-life” because in some extreme cases killing may be necessary is a bit of a reach, but whatever.

You’d have to make an actual argument first. Hint: presenting red herrings and false conclusions don’t count. You didn’t manage to make any such proposition that I am anti-freedom.
I am against killing, killing isn’t a tenant of freedom.
I don’t see how you can manage to stroke yourself over something you did not accomplish.

You are for abortion ergo, you are pro-abortion. I am against abortion, that doesn’t make me anti-freedom especially since you admitted, no you said it was a ‘given’ that it is murder. Murder is not a right. Therefore, being against murder is not being against freedom.

This isn’t really complicated.

[quote]
Grievous harm. Hmm. How grievous would this torture have to be?[/quote]

I have to ask a serious question, and I apologize if it’s been discussed.

How many of you hardcore pro-life individuals had a child when you were not ready for it? I mean REALLY not ready for it? I knew too many girls in high school who were smart and driven, then got pregnant and became mothers. As a matter of fact, two of them have been unemployed for the past several years as a result of not finishing HS, no college, and constantly watching their kids (kids plural). Cannot afford day care, in severe debt, and both of them actually get child support from the fathers, who are probably also in debt.

I know a man who killed himself because child support payments drove him so far into debt that he knew he would have to work several decades to pay it off. He was an old friend. Go ahead and call him weak, call him a quitter … both are true. But who knows what it’s like?

I bring this up because most of the pro-lifers I know have ZERO experience with the aforementioend issues. It’s easy to cast stones when the issue in question doesn’t affect you directly. Don’t take this as a hateful comment, but I’m curious … how many of you know what that’s like? Do you really think children who grow up like that are going to live worthwhile lives with good family influence? Possible, sure. I assert that it is unlikely.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:
(personal) Question(s): Has anyone in this thread been involved with a woman/girl who has had an abortion?

Does anyone have any real experience with the subject matter? [/quote]

I haven’t been with any, I have known them though. One was bat shit crazy…[/quote]

And I’m the King of France.[/quote]

Then, your pro-abortion stance is quite excusable.
You just spent 219 years without a head, after all.
[/quote]

Pro choice. Not pro abortion.[/quote]

No. If support the ‘choice’ to abort, you are pro-abortion. You’re just trying to make it sound prettier, it’s not it’s ugly.[/quote]

Just like how if the choice is to not abort, you are anti-abortion. Oh wait, that’s retarded because it’s too ad-hoc to accurately describe the pro-choice position…

Well at least your title is accurate; pro-life… except when it comes to killing ‘terrorists’ and certain criminals… hmm perhaps you are the ones just trying to make your position sound prettier. [/quote]

I am very anti-abortion.

Introducing terrorists and criminals is a Red Herring. And you don’t know my position on that.[/quote]

It’s not a red herring, it’s very much relevant. You cannot call yourself pro-life if you’re only pro-life when it suits you. You didn’t deny that you support the death penalty, so I assume you do and only brought up that you haven’t made a stand either way as a talking point.

You are ‘anti-abortion’, in the same way I’m ‘pro-choice’-of-whether-or-not-to-get-an-abortion. You are always against abortion, while I am always for the choice, the open option, without legal repercussions. They are equal terms.

You can change your terminology as you will, but then the rules change and I have to change my terminology accordingly. [/quote]

I do not support the death penalty. However, the death penalty is not in the conversation…

1.2 million > 20. When the numbers of abortions become as little as the death penalty, I will give it it’s due attention. Abortion is a way bigger problem. The death penalty is morally wrong, in most cases.

And it’s still a Red Herring…[/quote]

So it’s a matter of numbers for you? Interesting.

Also, you say “in most cases”, meaning it’s not always morally wrong?

Finally, I’ve given my reason as to why it’s not a red herring. If you want to prove it is otherwise you’ll have to carry the idea farther than the declarative stage.[/quote]

Numbers do matter. Both are morally wrong, and if all else are equal then they deserve equal attention. But all else is not equal. Death penalty is rarely used, abortion happens every 3 seconds.

It is a red herring because you were trying to divert the topic from abortion being murder, to trying to prove I had an inconsistent stance on life. Even if I had an inconsistent stance on life, it still wouldn’t change the fact that abortion is murder.

I meant ‘in most cases’ because a state has a right and a duty to protect it’s citizens. For instance, sometimes you have people who are leaders or some such, whose existence can stir up followers to do harm or to try and rescue, him or something like that. In such a case, the need to rid the populous of such a risk is greater than need to preserve the other guy’s life.

Think about Bin Laden for instance, taking him in to custody could be a disaster. Terrorist acts or attempted rescues would have been a distinct possibility, hence killing him was the better option.
This type of thing is very, very rare of course, but it’s an exception to the rule that must be accounted for.[/quote]

Wrong. Abortion being murder is a given, that’s not what I’m arguing about. My entire effort is to reveal contradictions in your philosophy, so there is no red herring. Ironically, in your attempt to pull a red herring out of my argument, you’ve committed a red herring.
[/quote]
So your stance is that abortion is murder, but that it’s ok to do anyway? That’s interesting and honest and I appreciate that.
I haven’t presented any contradictions in my arguments though. You were pulling from a stereotype where you assumed I was a “typical republican” and against abortion and for the death penalty. That’s simply not the case. Further, you introduced these things, I did not. I was talking about abortion and it’s wrongness because it’s the taking of a human life. From that I have not wavered not one little tiny bit.

Man, that’s a tortured round-a-bout way of trying to avoid the pro-abortion label. If you are for abortion, then you are pro-abortion, period. You can call me pro-life or anti-abortion, I don’t really care.
Trying to assert that I am not “pro-life” because in some extreme cases killing may be necessary is a bit of a reach, but whatever.

You’d have to make an actual argument first. Hint: presenting red herrings and false conclusions don’t count. You didn’t manage to make any such proposition that I am anti-freedom.
I am against killing, killing isn’t a tenant of freedom.
I don’t see how you can manage to stroke yourself over something you did not accomplish.

You are for abortion ergo, you are pro-abortion. I am against abortion, that doesn’t make me anti-freedom especially since you admitted, no you said it was a ‘given’ that it is murder. Murder is not a right. Therefore, being against murder is not being against freedom.

This isn’t really complicated.

Go over it again it is…

I am not pro-abortion. Do you want to eat pizza right now? No? Then I guess you’re anti-pizza. Do you see the problem with that? Just as I don’t try to forcefully stop women from getting abortion, I don’t avidly attempt to get them to have abortions either. To say I’m “pro-abortion” is a deliberate semantical manipulation of facts.

The purpose of labels is to describe something constant. You consistently oppose abortion, you are anti abortion. You are not consistently pro life (as you’ve admitted there are such scenarios) so you are not pro life. Does that make you anti-life? No. That’s equally retarded, just in the opposite direction. So too is it the case that saying I’m pro-abortion is equally retarded as saying I’m anti-abortion. The fact of the matter is, neither one applies to me because the constant here isn’t my personal desire to see abortions either happen or not happen, but my desire to see the option left up to the mothers. The term for that is pro-choice.

If you don’t want to use that term, then fine. Feel free to use the term “pro-abortion” like the manipulative weasel you are, but in the interest of fairness I too will use an equally manipulative and misguiding term, anti-freedom. You oppose the freedom of choice when it comes to abortion, hence you are anti-freedom. It follows equally as well as your term.

You disagree? I can’t wait to hear why…

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
I bring this up because most of the pro-lifers I know have ZERO experience with the aforementioend issues. [/quote]

Just the fact that 99% of people in this thread are men should show that experience is not important when debating a subject on the inter-webs.

Because I’ve never been raped or never raped anyone does that mean my arguments for or against rape are meaningless?

Because I’ve never been sentenced to death or never sentenced someone to death, does that mean my thoughts on that issue don’t count either?

That’s not to say experience doesn’t count, but it takes more than lack of experience to discount someones thoughts and opinions on the matter too.

In fact, sometimes experience can be a detractor of the value of someone’s opinion because of the bias it can create.

I’m just looking for reasonable thoughts on the issue.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:
(personal) Question(s): Has anyone in this thread been involved with a woman/girl who has had an abortion?

Does anyone have any real experience with the subject matter? [/quote]

I haven’t been with any, I have known them though. One was bat shit crazy…[/quote]

And I’m the King of France.[/quote]

Then, your pro-abortion stance is quite excusable.
You just spent 219 years without a head, after all.
[/quote]

Pro choice. Not pro abortion.[/quote]

No. If support the ‘choice’ to abort, you are pro-abortion. You’re just trying to make it sound prettier, it’s not it’s ugly.[/quote]

Just like how if the choice is to not abort, you are anti-abortion. Oh wait, that’s retarded because it’s too ad-hoc to accurately describe the pro-choice position…

Well at least your title is accurate; pro-life… except when it comes to killing ‘terrorists’ and certain criminals… hmm perhaps you are the ones just trying to make your position sound prettier. [/quote]

I am very anti-abortion.

Introducing terrorists and criminals is a Red Herring. And you don’t know my position on that.[/quote]

It’s not a red herring, it’s very much relevant. You cannot call yourself pro-life if you’re only pro-life when it suits you. You didn’t deny that you support the death penalty, so I assume you do and only brought up that you haven’t made a stand either way as a talking point.

You are ‘anti-abortion’, in the same way I’m ‘pro-choice’-of-whether-or-not-to-get-an-abortion. You are always against abortion, while I am always for the choice, the open option, without legal repercussions. They are equal terms.

You can change your terminology as you will, but then the rules change and I have to change my terminology accordingly. [/quote]

I do not support the death penalty. However, the death penalty is not in the conversation…

1.2 million > 20. When the numbers of abortions become as little as the death penalty, I will give it it’s due attention. Abortion is a way bigger problem. The death penalty is morally wrong, in most cases.

And it’s still a Red Herring…[/quote]

So it’s a matter of numbers for you? Interesting.

Also, you say “in most cases”, meaning it’s not always morally wrong?

Finally, I’ve given my reason as to why it’s not a red herring. If you want to prove it is otherwise you’ll have to carry the idea farther than the declarative stage.[/quote]

Numbers do matter. Both are morally wrong, and if all else are equal then they deserve equal attention. But all else is not equal. Death penalty is rarely used, abortion happens every 3 seconds.

It is a red herring because you were trying to divert the topic from abortion being murder, to trying to prove I had an inconsistent stance on life. Even if I had an inconsistent stance on life, it still wouldn’t change the fact that abortion is murder.

I meant ‘in most cases’ because a state has a right and a duty to protect it’s citizens. For instance, sometimes you have people who are leaders or some such, whose existence can stir up followers to do harm or to try and rescue, him or something like that. In such a case, the need to rid the populous of such a risk is greater than need to preserve the other guy’s life.

Think about Bin Laden for instance, taking him in to custody could be a disaster. Terrorist acts or attempted rescues would have been a distinct possibility, hence killing him was the better option.
This type of thing is very, very rare of course, but it’s an exception to the rule that must be accounted for.[/quote]

Wrong. Abortion being murder is a given, that’s not what I’m arguing about. My entire effort is to reveal contradictions in your philosophy, so there is no red herring. Ironically, in your attempt to pull a red herring out of my argument, you’ve committed a red herring.
[/quote]
So your stance is that abortion is murder, but that it’s ok to do anyway? That’s interesting and honest and I appreciate that.
I haven’t presented any contradictions in my arguments though. You were pulling from a stereotype where you assumed I was a “typical republican” and against abortion and for the death penalty. That’s simply not the case. Further, you introduced these things, I did not. I was talking about abortion and it’s wrongness because it’s the taking of a human life. From that I have not wavered not one little tiny bit.

Man, that’s a tortured round-a-bout way of trying to avoid the pro-abortion label. If you are for abortion, then you are pro-abortion, period. You can call me pro-life or anti-abortion, I don’t really care.
Trying to assert that I am not “pro-life” because in some extreme cases killing may be necessary is a bit of a reach, but whatever.

You’d have to make an actual argument first. Hint: presenting red herrings and false conclusions don’t count. You didn’t manage to make any such proposition that I am anti-freedom.
I am against killing, killing isn’t a tenant of freedom.
I don’t see how you can manage to stroke yourself over something you did not accomplish.

You are for abortion ergo, you are pro-abortion. I am against abortion, that doesn’t make me anti-freedom especially since you admitted, no you said it was a ‘given’ that it is murder. Murder is not a right. Therefore, being against murder is not being against freedom.

This isn’t really complicated.

choo choo all aboard the quote train

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

Go over it again it is…

I am not pro-abortion. Do you want to eat pizza right now? No? Then I guess you’re anti-pizza. Do you see the problem with that? Just as I don’t try to forcefully stop women from getting abortion, I don’t avidly attempt to get them to have abortions either. To say I’m “pro-abortion” is a deliberate semantical manipulation of facts.
[/quote]
Incorrect. Man you sure know how to paint yourself into corners. This isn’t really hard. You are pro-abortion because you support the practice. You falling into the fallacy of false alternatives. Not wanting a pizza today, isn’t anti-pizza. Being against the existence of pizza is anti-pizza. You are pro-abortion because you support the existence of the practice and people right to use it. This is not a divisive term if you are for the practice of abortion.
The stupidity here is getting deep.

[quote]
The purpose of labels is to describe something constant. You consistently oppose abortion, you are anti abortion. You are not consistently pro life (as you’ve admitted there are such scenarios) so you are not pro life. Does that make you anti-life? No. That’s equally retarded, just in the opposite direction. So too is it the case that saying I’m pro-abortion is equally retarded as saying I’m anti-abortion. The fact of the matter is, neither one applies to me because the constant here isn’t my personal desire to see abortions either happen or not happen, but my desire to see the option left up to the mothers. The term for that is pro-choice.

If you don’t want to use that term, then fine. Feel free to use the term “pro-abortion” like the manipulative weasel you are, but in the interest of fairness I too will use an equally manipulative and misguiding term, anti-freedom. You oppose the freedom of choice when it comes to abortion, hence you are anti-freedom. It follows equally as well as your term.

You disagree? I can’t wait to hear why…[/quote]

Choosing to murder is not a tenet of freedom. Again, fallacy of false alternatives. Wake me when you have a point.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

Go over it again it is…

I am not pro-abortion. Do you want to eat pizza right now? No? Then I guess you’re anti-pizza. Do you see the problem with that? Just as I don’t try to forcefully stop women from getting abortion, I don’t avidly attempt to get them to have abortions either. To say I’m “pro-abortion” is a deliberate semantical manipulation of facts.
[/quote]
Incorrect. Man you sure know how to paint yourself into corners. This isn’t really hard. You are pro-abortion because you support the practice. You falling into the fallacy of false alternatives. Not wanting a pizza today, isn’t anti-pizza. Being against the existence of pizza is anti-pizza. You are pro-abortion because you support the existence of the practice and people right to use it. This is not a divisive term if you are for the practice of abortion.
The stupidity here is getting deep.

[quote]
The purpose of labels is to describe something constant. You consistently oppose abortion, you are anti abortion. You are not consistently pro life (as you’ve admitted there are such scenarios) so you are not pro life. Does that make you anti-life? No. That’s equally retarded, just in the opposite direction. So too is it the case that saying I’m pro-abortion is equally retarded as saying I’m anti-abortion. The fact of the matter is, neither one applies to me because the constant here isn’t my personal desire to see abortions either happen or not happen, but my desire to see the option left up to the mothers. The term for that is pro-choice.

If you don’t want to use that term, then fine. Feel free to use the term “pro-abortion” like the manipulative weasel you are, but in the interest of fairness I too will use an equally manipulative and misguiding term, anti-freedom. You oppose the freedom of choice when it comes to abortion, hence you are anti-freedom. It follows equally as well as your term.

You disagree? I can’t wait to hear why…[/quote]

Choosing to murder is not a tenet of freedom. Again, fallacy of false alternatives. Wake me when you have a point.[/quote]

I’m not for the practice of abortion, I’m for the option. Like how I’m not “for” boob-jobs (the surgery, not the other kind), but I am “for” the option. It’s only a difference in emphasise, granted, but if you insist on changing my title to suit your view, then you have no right to complain when I do the same. I can make the same argument you’re making for why you are anti-X as well.

You say I’m pro-abortion because I’m “for” the practice of abortion, but this is only true in some cases. I’m not “for” the practice of abortion when the mother wants the child. In that case I’m anti-abortion, because it would be involuntary. Am I anti-abortion now? No? Then your label lacks consistency.

The fact is we have two labels here; pro-choice and pro-abortion. Pro-abortion is only adequate to describe me when I’m for the option of abortion, it doesn’t make sense in the circumstances where I am not for abortion, which do come up believe it or not. However, I’m always pro-choice, so this is clearly the more accurate label and the only reason for you to pick the former over the later is if you have an agenda requiring semantical manipulation.

Fine, I’ll just call you anti-freedom then. are you always anti-freedom? No, but you are when it comes to people killing you, and using your logic if a label describes you some of the time, then that label is adequate. More adequate, in fact, than a label that describes your position with consistency. Therefore, you are actually more anti-freedom than you are anti-abortion.

The difference in accuracy of these two labels is the same as the difference in the two labels for my position and I’m so generous I even allow you to pick which set of rules we go by, but I’m not generous enough to be inconsistent for you, sorry.

Finally, freedom doesn’t end at the things you don’t like. If we only have freedom to the extent that we don’t do things you don’t like, then we don’t actually have freedom at all. You’re a catholic, so I know that idea doesn’t quite click with you, but having freedom means having the freedom to kill other people and if you don’t want to be killed, then you are anti-freedom at least to the extent that you don’t want other people killing you. Is calling you anti-freedom an accurate title given this? Fuck no, but then neither is calling me pro-abortion when I’m only “pro-abortion” to the extent that mothers willingly choose to exercise such a right.

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

Go over it again it is…

I am not pro-abortion. Do you want to eat pizza right now? No? Then I guess you’re anti-pizza. Do you see the problem with that? Just as I don’t try to forcefully stop women from getting abortion, I don’t avidly attempt to get them to have abortions either. To say I’m “pro-abortion” is a deliberate semantical manipulation of facts.
[/quote]
Incorrect. Man you sure know how to paint yourself into corners. This isn’t really hard. You are pro-abortion because you support the practice. You falling into the fallacy of false alternatives. Not wanting a pizza today, isn’t anti-pizza. Being against the existence of pizza is anti-pizza. You are pro-abortion because you support the existence of the practice and people right to use it. This is not a divisive term if you are for the practice of abortion.
The stupidity here is getting deep.

[quote]
The purpose of labels is to describe something constant. You consistently oppose abortion, you are anti abortion. You are not consistently pro life (as you’ve admitted there are such scenarios) so you are not pro life. Does that make you anti-life? No. That’s equally retarded, just in the opposite direction. So too is it the case that saying I’m pro-abortion is equally retarded as saying I’m anti-abortion. The fact of the matter is, neither one applies to me because the constant here isn’t my personal desire to see abortions either happen or not happen, but my desire to see the option left up to the mothers. The term for that is pro-choice.

If you don’t want to use that term, then fine. Feel free to use the term “pro-abortion” like the manipulative weasel you are, but in the interest of fairness I too will use an equally manipulative and misguiding term, anti-freedom. You oppose the freedom of choice when it comes to abortion, hence you are anti-freedom. It follows equally as well as your term.

You disagree? I can’t wait to hear why…[/quote]

Choosing to murder is not a tenet of freedom. Again, fallacy of false alternatives. Wake me when you have a point.[/quote]

I’m not for the practice of abortion, I’m for the option. Like how I’m not “for” boob-jobs (the surgery, not the other kind), but I am “for” the option. It’s only a difference in emphasise, granted, but if you insist on changing my title to suit your view, then you have no right to complain when I do the same. I can make the same argument you’re making for why you are anti-X as well.

You say I’m pro-abortion because I’m “for” the practice of abortion, but this is only true in some cases. I’m not “for” the practice of abortion when the mother wants the child. In that case I’m anti-abortion, because it would be involuntary. Am I anti-abortion now? No? Then your label lacks consistency.

The fact is we have two labels here; pro-choice and pro-abortion. Pro-abortion is only adequate to describe me when I’m for the option of abortion, it doesn’t make sense in the circumstances where I am not for abortion, which do come up believe it or not. However, I’m always pro-choice, so this is clearly the more accurate label and the only reason for you to pick the former over the later is if you have an agenda requiring semantical manipulation.

Fine, I’ll just call you anti-freedom then. are you always anti-freedom? No, but you are when it comes to people killing you, and using your logic if a label describes you some of the time, then that label is adequate. More adequate, in fact, than a label that describes your position with consistency. Therefore, you are actually more anti-freedom than you are anti-abortion.

The difference in accuracy of these two labels is the same as the difference in the two labels for my position and I’m so generous I even allow you to pick which set of rules we go by, but I’m not generous enough to be inconsistent for you, sorry.

Finally, freedom doesn’t end at the things you don’t like. If we only have freedom to the extent that we don’t do things you don’t like, then we don’t actually have freedom at all. You’re a catholic, so I know that idea doesn’t quite click with you, but having freedom means having the freedom to kill other people and if you don’t want to be killed, then you are anti-freedom at least to the extent that you don’t want other people killing you. Is calling you anti-freedom an accurate title given this? Fuck no, but then neither is calling me pro-abortion when I’m only “pro-abortion” to the extent that mothers willingly choose to exercise such a right. [/quote]

Quit while your behind, you’re pro-abortion. Grow a pair and deal. I am not “anti-freedom” because I don’t agree with the freedom to kill. Like I said ‘fallacy of false alternatives’… You’re trying so super hard for a ridiculous end. You can’t change what things are by sheer will. These things are not in your control.

Someone can be pro-choice while being against abortions personally.
Just like someone could be against trans fats but also be against regulating behaviors (banning TF in restaurants let say).
Its all semantics anyway. Call it pro-choice and pro-taking away choice
With the logic process Pat is using there would be no such thing as a pro-life person that supported the death penalty for felons.

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Someone can be pro-choice while being against abortions personally.
Just like someone could be against trans fats but also be against regulating behaviors (banning TF in restaurants let say).
Its all semantics anyway. Call it pro-choice and pro-taking away choice
With the logic process Pat is using there would be no such thing as a pro-life person that supported the death penalty for felons.[/quote]

I agree and I think pat is just performing mental gymnastics here so he can attack pro-choicers.

I also think it’s stupid when people call a Pro-Lifer “anti woman.”

You can be pro-life and pro-woman, they are not mutually exclusive positions either.

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I agree and I think pat is just performing mental gymnastics here so he can attack pro-choicers.
[/quote]

It’s the same thing as the people who make it a point to use the word “murder” whenever possible when talking about abortion. Dumb trick that only tries to play to peoples emotions and to appear as morally superior than your opponent.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Pro choice. Not pro abortion.[/quote]

Same thing anymore.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
And as I predicted, you continue to ignore the reality of human nature.[/quote]

How do I ignore the reality of human nature? I hold a view of human nature that has been proven to be true for coming on 2000+ years. [/quote]

Poor simple Chris. Step outside your circle of bible thumpers for a day or two.[/quote]

Step out of your circle of atheists for a day or two. Still not sure what this has to do with anything.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
And as I predicted, you continue to ignore the reality of human nature.[/quote]

How do I ignore the reality of human nature? I hold a view of human nature that has been proven to be true for a little more than 6000 years. [/quote]

Fixed[/quote]

How did you fix that, I was referencing Aristotle and Socrates? Are you asserting that I believe in creation? I believe that is called Association Fallacy and a non-sequitor.

I’ve clearly stated several times that I believe evolution to be true.