• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

The Vatican, the Catholic And Christians Churches

Is the Vatican under Pope Francis

  • Too much interfering in politics

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • Too much leftist

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • Too much anti capitalist

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • Is doing a great job

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • Is doing a Middle job

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • Is doing a bad job

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • Is defending the poor and the environment

    Votes: 4 40.0%
  • It’s position on immigration negative

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • It’s position on immigration positive

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • The pope is a saint in his private life

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • The pope is an inspirational figure

    Votes: 7 70.0%
  • Pope Francis while a saintly figure is wrong in his opposition to populist leaders like Trump or Lig

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • It’s a scandal the Pope refuse to receive Populist Government in Italy

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • Pope refusal of Abortions is great

    Votes: 4 40.0%
  • Pope acceptance not to condemn people and to give second chances even for abortions supporters is ??

    Votes: 4 40.0%

  • Total voters
    10

eile

Well-Known Member
@butters, @joseph_lubnan

May I ask what is your rational justification in support of abortion? The whole abortion debate depends on the identity of the unborn, not choice.

---

Learners and seekers, take note.
Paraphrasing the good people on the internet:

The right to choose isn’t the right to choose anything. Some choices are wrong and should be restricted. If the unborn are human persons, then the choice to have an abortion is on par with murder. if the unborn are not human persons, then women ought to be allowed to do 'what they want with their own bodies'. However, there is a clear scientific consensus that conception results in the existence of a 'living, distinct and whole' human being.

Faced with this, the ignorant and the wicked may reply with 'the unborn are unable to think like we do or do the things we adults are able to do'. However, as they cannot but concede truths that ultimately contradict them (truths they partly harbor (or half truths) for their wicked, deceiving purposes, as does their bastardized, dangerously compromised, and ultimately farcical paraded humanism), namely, that our values as human persons does not depend on how we are currently able to function, that all humans have equal moral value in spite of inequalities in development, intelligence and dependency, it is entailed that the unborn are as as much persons as the newborns, adults in deep sleep, the past centuries slaves, the mentally ill, the mentally retarted, human patients surviving on life support machines, so on and so forth. If they concede all of those to be human persons, then they simply cannot rationally deny the human personhood of the unborn.

If the unborn are human (as per the scientific evidence) and person as per the above, then abortion is simply a human rights violation.

The desperately and unashamed wicked people might still reply by

- "it's not black or white" mantra or that abortion is legit and licit in some cases such as in response to rape and incest pregnancies. However the abortion in such cases only adds another victim (the unborn child) to an already existing crime. The unborn are just as innocent as their mothers, and we ought not punish or harm the innocent.

- Appeals to bodily autonomy. However, If, as demonstrated, abortion takes the life of a human person, then the scope of liberty does not extend to abortion anymore than it does to murder.

- 'abortion is bad and inevitable, so it should at least be safe/legal/rare in order to minimize the harm from illegal / 'back-alley' abortions'. However, this amounts to saying 'we need to make bank robbery safe/legal/rare in order to minimize harm to bank robbers'. Both should be illegal to begin with. Speaking of safe abortions makes as much sense as speaking of safe murder.

----

As things stand, abortion is the worst human rights violations of all time.

inviting the following forum members for an input on the topic of abortion
@Isabella @manifesto @Nonan @loubnaniTO @The Jade @Muki @Jorje @Frisbeetarian @dodzi @Danny Z @Libnene Qu7 @Placebo @Silence, @Dirty Dragon @Skunk, @Genius, @Republican @LiNk @mrsrx @ma5assak @L'arbalette @butters
 

!Aoune32

Well-Known Member
It may very well be morally wrong, but it is the woman's decision.

w leich its a woman's decision??
she got pregnant and she needs to raise the kid.. not get rid of it because she is a parasite who had no protection. there is no excuse for abortion. it is a wrong thing to do.
 

GrumpForTrump

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter

Thoma

New Member
Summarizing and updating my main entry on the topic of abortion in this thread:

- The whole abortion debate depends on the identity of the unborn, not choice.

- Some choices are wrong and should be restricted.

- If the unborn are human persons, then the choice to have an abortion is tantamount to murder. if the unborn are not human persons, then women ought to be allowed to do 'what they want with their own bodies'.

- There is a clear scientific consensus that conception results in the existence of a 'living, distinct and whole' human being, in the course of development; 'a zygote is as much of a human as an adult human'; 'almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell (zygote)'; 'the time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history (ontogeny) of the individual'; 'human development begins at conception'; 'the zygote is composed of its own human DNA'. There is no scientific paper out there that states a human life begins later on or at birth. (Bottom line: the unborn is a (distinct) human being)

- Since our value as human persons does not depend on how we are currently able to function, or that all humans have equal moral value in spite of inequalities in development, intelligence, dependency, size and location, the unborn are therefore as much persons as the newborns, the adults in deep sleep, the past centuries slaves, the mentally ill, the mentally retarted, human patients/family members surviving on life support machines, so on and so forth. (Bottom line: the unborn is a (distinct) human person)

- Since the unborn are human persons, abortion is murder; a human rights violation (the worst of its kind).

==================

A list of possible counter claims, followed by their refutations:

- "it's not black or white" or that 'abortion is legit and licit in some cases such as in response to rape and incest pregnancies'. Response: the abortion in such cases only adds another victim (the unborn child) to an already existing crime. The unborn are just as innocent as their mothers, and we ought not punish or harm the innocent.

- 'the fetus is inside the women's body, therefore abortion is their decision alone, and no one should butt in their business' (i.e. appeals to bodily autonomy). Response: If, as demonstrated, abortion takes the life of a (distinct) human person, then the scope of liberty does not extend to abortion anymore than it does to murder.

- 'abortion is bad and inevitable, so it should at least be safe/legal/rare in order to minimize the harm from illegal / 'back-alley' abortions'. Response: this amounts to saying 'we need to make bank robbery safe/legal/rare in order to minimize harm to bank robbers'. Both should be illegal to begin with. Speaking of safe abortions makes as much sense as speaking of safe murder.

- 'scientific consensus aside, we cannot be certain that the unborn are (distinct) human beings to begin with'. Response: even if, for argument's sake, we held this position, we still cannot kill the unborn anymore than we can demolish a building while being uncertain of the non-existence of a human being inside. Such an appeal would at best grant a default priority to the pregnant mother over her unborn when her life is endangered because of the pregnancy (a possible human existence vs the actual one) and thus allow abortion under that condition only and not allow it in any other case. However, we can be certain even without a scientific consensus that the unborn is a (distinct) human being (where both the unborn and the mother would be treated as two born human patients would get treated in the face of sickness and limited life/medical support/resource); 'what separates or differentiates a human part (leg, arm, sperm, egg) from a complete human being (irrespective of their development stage) is the conception/fecundation phase/event, and dismissing that means dismissing any said difference/separation to begin with'.

- 'abortion could be allowed if the baby is terminally ill or has a debilitating birth defect'. Response: If, as demonstrated, abortion takes the life of a (distinct) human person, then choosing to abort the unborn is tantamount to killing a born human person who happens to be terminally ill or has a debilitating birth defect (not even like, but far worse than, assisting them in killing themselves (as in euthanasia)).

================

Calling out the following entities to justify themselves or announce their views on the topic, in no particular order:

@Isabella @manifesto @Nonan @Nasser, @SeaAb @loubnaniTO @The Jade @Muki @Jorje @Frisbeetarian @dodzi @Danny Z @Libnene Qu7 @Placebo @Silence, @Dirty Dragon @Skunk, @Genius, @Republican @LiNk @mrsrx @ma5assak @L'arbalette @butters @joseph_lubnan @Mysobalanus @walidos @Iron Maiden @Rock @gramsci @Death To Google @LiNk @zero

@manifesto, my update and summary includes a reply to your input.
 
Last edited:

Isabella

The queen of "Bazella"
Orange Room Supporter
Summarizing and updating my main entry on the topic of abortion in this thread:

- The whole abortion debate depends on the identity of the unborn, not choice.

- Some choices are wrong and should be restricted.

- If the unborn are human persons, then the choice to have an abortion is tantamount to murder. if the unborn are not human persons, then women ought to be allowed to do 'what they want with their own bodies'.

- There is a clear scientific consensus that conception results in the existence of a 'living, distinct and whole' human being, in the course of development; 'a zygote is as much of a human as an adult human'; 'almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell (zygote)'; 'the time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history (ontogeny) of the individual'; 'human development begins at conception'; 'the zygote is composed of its own human DNA'. There is no scientific paper out there that states a human life begins later on or at birth. (Bottom line: the unborn is a (distinct) human being)

- Since our value as human persons does not depend on how we are currently able to function, or that all humans have equal moral value in spite of inequalities in development, intelligence, dependency, size and location, the unborn are therefore as much persons as the newborns, the adults in deep sleep, the past centuries slaves, the mentally ill, the mentally retarted, human patients/family members surviving on life support machines, so on and so forth. (Bottom line: the unborn is a (distinct) human person)

- Since the unborn are human persons, abortion is murder; a human rights violation (the worst of its kind).

==================

A list of possible counter claims, followed by their refutations:

- "it's not black or white" or that 'abortion is legit and licit in some cases such as in response to rape and incest pregnancies'. Response: the abortion in such cases only adds another victim (the unborn child) to an already existing crime. The unborn are just as innocent as their mothers, and we ought not punish or harm the innocent.

- 'the fetus is inside the women's body, therefore abortion is their decision alone, and no one should butt in their business' (i.e. appeals to bodily autonomy). Response: If, as demonstrated, abortion takes the life of a (distinct) human person, then the scope of liberty does not extend to abortion anymore than it does to murder.

- 'abortion is bad and inevitable, so it should at least be safe/legal/rare in order to minimize the harm from illegal / 'back-alley' abortions'. Response: this amounts to saying 'we need to make bank robbery safe/legal/rare in order to minimize harm to bank robbers'. Both should be illegal to begin with. Speaking of safe abortions makes as much sense as speaking of safe murder.

- 'scientific consensus aside, we cannot be certain that the unborn are (distinct) human beings to begin with'. Response: even if, for argument's sake, we held this position, we still cannot kill the unborn anymore than we can demolish a building while being uncertain of the non-existence of a human being inside. Such an appeal would at best grant a default priority to the pregnant mother over her unborn when her life is endangered because of the pregnancy (a possible human existence vs the actual one) and thus allow abortion under that condition only and not allow it in any other case. However, we can be certain even without a scientific consensus that the unborn is a (distinct) human being (where both the unborn and the mother would be treated as two born human patients would get treated in the face of sickness and limited life/medical support/resource); 'what separates or differentiates a human part (leg, arm, sperm, egg) from a complete human being (irrespective of their development stage) is the conception/fecundation phase/event, and dismissing that means dismissing any said difference/separation to begin with'.

- 'abortion could be allowed if the baby is terminally ill or has a debilitating birth defect'. Response: If, as demonstrated, abortion takes the life of a (distinct) human person, then choosing to abort the unborn is tantamount to killing a born human person who happens to be terminally ill or has a debilitating birth defect (not even like, but far worse than, assisting them in killing themselves (as in euthanasia)).

================

Calling out the following entities to justify themselves or announce their views on the topic, in no particular order:

@Isabella @manifesto @Nonan @Nasser, @SeaAb @loubnaniTO @The Jade @Muki @Jorje @Frisbeetarian @dodzi @Danny Z @Libnene Qu7 @Placebo @Silence, @Dirty Dragon @Skunk, @Genius, @Republican @LiNk @mrsrx @ma5assak @L'arbalette @butters @joseph_lubnan @Mysobalanus @walidos @Iron Maiden @Rock @gramsci @Death To Google @LiNk @zero

@manifesto, my update and summary includes a reply to your input.

As the first of the "entities" you decided to call out allow me to tell you that I don't want to discuss this topic, had I wanted to participate in this debate I would have already done so.

In case you are still interested: my view on abortion is that it should be limited to very few cases in which it's both in the benefit of the mother and the foetus to do so. I do not wish to expand on this, I already have in so many other threads nor do I wish to fight anyone over my opinion!

So stop tagging me in this subject!
 

The Bidenator

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Summarizing and updating my main entry on the topic of abortion in this thread:

- The whole abortion debate depends on the identity of the unborn, not choice.

- Some choices are wrong and should be restricted.

- If the unborn are human persons, then the choice to have an abortion is tantamount to murder. if the unborn are not human persons, then women ought to be allowed to do 'what they want with their own bodies'.

- There is a clear scientific consensus that conception results in the existence of a 'living, distinct and whole' human being, in the course of development; 'a zygote is as much of a human as an adult human'; 'almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell (zygote)'; 'the time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history (ontogeny) of the individual'; 'human development begins at conception'; 'the zygote is composed of its own human DNA'. There is no scientific paper out there that states a human life begins later on or at birth. (Bottom line: the unborn is a (distinct) human being)

- Since our value as human persons does not depend on how we are currently able to function, or that all humans have equal moral value in spite of inequalities in development, intelligence, dependency, size and location, the unborn are therefore as much persons as the newborns, the adults in deep sleep, the past centuries slaves, the mentally ill, the mentally retarted, human patients/family members surviving on life support machines, so on and so forth. (Bottom line: the unborn is a (distinct) human person)

- Since the unborn are human persons, abortion is murder; a human rights violation (the worst of its kind).

==================

A list of possible counter claims, followed by their refutations:

- "it's not black or white" or that 'abortion is legit and licit in some cases such as in response to rape and incest pregnancies'. Response: the abortion in such cases only adds another victim (the unborn child) to an already existing crime. The unborn are just as innocent as their mothers, and we ought not punish or harm the innocent.

- 'the fetus is inside the women's body, therefore abortion is their decision alone, and no one should butt in their business' (i.e. appeals to bodily autonomy). Response: If, as demonstrated, abortion takes the life of a (distinct) human person, then the scope of liberty does not extend to abortion anymore than it does to murder.

- 'abortion is bad and inevitable, so it should at least be safe/legal/rare in order to minimize the harm from illegal / 'back-alley' abortions'. Response: this amounts to saying 'we need to make bank robbery safe/legal/rare in order to minimize harm to bank robbers'. Both should be illegal to begin with. Speaking of safe abortions makes as much sense as speaking of safe murder.

- 'scientific consensus aside, we cannot be certain that the unborn are (distinct) human beings to begin with'. Response: even if, for argument's sake, we held this position, we still cannot kill the unborn anymore than we can demolish a building while being uncertain of the non-existence of a human being inside. Such an appeal would at best grant a default priority to the pregnant mother over her unborn when her life is endangered because of the pregnancy (a possible human existence vs the actual one) and thus allow abortion under that condition only and not allow it in any other case. However, we can be certain even without a scientific consensus that the unborn is a (distinct) human being (where both the unborn and the mother would be treated as two born human patients would get treated in the face of sickness and limited life/medical support/resource); 'what separates or differentiates a human part (leg, arm, sperm, egg) from a complete human being (irrespective of their development stage) is the conception/fecundation phase/event, and dismissing that means dismissing any said difference/separation to begin with'.

- 'abortion could be allowed if the baby is terminally ill or has a debilitating birth defect'. Response: If, as demonstrated, abortion takes the life of a (distinct) human person, then choosing to abort the unborn is tantamount to killing a born human person who happens to be terminally ill or has a debilitating birth defect (not even like, but far worse than, assisting them in killing themselves (as in euthanasia)).

================

Calling out the following entities to justify themselves or announce their views on the topic, in no particular order:

@Isabella @manifesto @Nonan @Nasser, @SeaAb @loubnaniTO @The Jade @Muki @Jorje @Frisbeetarian @dodzi @Danny Z @Libnene Qu7 @Placebo @Silence, @Dirty Dragon @Skunk, @Genius, @Republican @LiNk @mrsrx @ma5assak @L'arbalette @butters @joseph_lubnan @Mysobalanus @walidos @Iron Maiden @Rock @gramsci @Death To Google @LiNk @zero

@manifesto, my update and summary includes a reply to your input.

@eile your input is needed. It seems @Thoma forgot to tag you.
 

Mrsrx

Not an expert!
Staff member
Summarizing and updating my main entry on the topic of abortion in this thread:

- The whole abortion debate depends on the identity of the unborn, not choice.

- Some choices are wrong and should be restricted.

- If the unborn are human persons, then the choice to have an abortion is tantamount to murder. if the unborn are not human persons, then women ought to be allowed to do 'what they want with their own bodies'.

- There is a clear scientific consensus that conception results in the existence of a 'living, distinct and whole' human being, in the course of development; 'a zygote is as much of a human as an adult human'; 'almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell (zygote)'; 'the time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history (ontogeny) of the individual'; 'human development begins at conception'; 'the zygote is composed of its own human DNA'. There is no scientific paper out there that states a human life begins later on or at birth. (Bottom line: the unborn is a (distinct) human being)

- Since our value as human persons does not depend on how we are currently able to function, or that all humans have equal moral value in spite of inequalities in development, intelligence, dependency, size and location, the unborn are therefore as much persons as the newborns, the adults in deep sleep, the past centuries slaves, the mentally ill, the mentally retarted, human patients/family members surviving on life support machines, so on and so forth. (Bottom line: the unborn is a (distinct) human person)

- Since the unborn are human persons, abortion is murder; a human rights violation (the worst of its kind).

==================

A list of possible counter claims, followed by their refutations:

- "it's not black or white" or that 'abortion is legit and licit in some cases such as in response to rape and incest pregnancies'. Response: the abortion in such cases only adds another victim (the unborn child) to an already existing crime. The unborn are just as innocent as their mothers, and we ought not punish or harm the innocent.

- 'the fetus is inside the women's body, therefore abortion is their decision alone, and no one should butt in their business' (i.e. appeals to bodily autonomy). Response: If, as demonstrated, abortion takes the life of a (distinct) human person, then the scope of liberty does not extend to abortion anymore than it does to murder.

- 'abortion is bad and inevitable, so it should at least be safe/legal/rare in order to minimize the harm from illegal / 'back-alley' abortions'. Response: this amounts to saying 'we need to make bank robbery safe/legal/rare in order to minimize harm to bank robbers'. Both should be illegal to begin with. Speaking of safe abortions makes as much sense as speaking of safe murder.

- 'scientific consensus aside, we cannot be certain that the unborn are (distinct) human beings to begin with'. Response: even if, for argument's sake, we held this position, we still cannot kill the unborn anymore than we can demolish a building while being uncertain of the non-existence of a human being inside. Such an appeal would at best grant a default priority to the pregnant mother over her unborn when her life is endangered because of the pregnancy (a possible human existence vs the actual one) and thus allow abortion under that condition only and not allow it in any other case. However, we can be certain even without a scientific consensus that the unborn is a (distinct) human being (where both the unborn and the mother would be treated as two born human patients would get treated in the face of sickness and limited life/medical support/resource); 'what separates or differentiates a human part (leg, arm, sperm, egg) from a complete human being (irrespective of their development stage) is the conception/fecundation phase/event, and dismissing that means dismissing any said difference/separation to begin with'.

- 'abortion could be allowed if the baby is terminally ill or has a debilitating birth defect'. Response: If, as demonstrated, abortion takes the life of a (distinct) human person, then choosing to abort the unborn is tantamount to killing a born human person who happens to be terminally ill or has a debilitating birth defect (not even like, but far worse than, assisting them in killing themselves (as in euthanasia)).

================

Calling out the following entities to justify themselves or announce their views on the topic, in no particular order:

@Isabella @manifesto @Nonan @Nasser, @SeaAb @loubnaniTO @The Jade @Muki @Jorje @Frisbeetarian @dodzi @Danny Z @Libnene Qu7 @Placebo @Silence, @Dirty Dragon @Skunk, @Genius, @Republican @LiNk @mrsrx @ma5assak @L'arbalette @butters @joseph_lubnan @Mysobalanus @walidos @Iron Maiden @Rock @gramsci @Death To Google @LiNk @zero

@manifesto, my update and summary includes a reply to your input.

Your summary is biased as it does not take into account all opinions if you are calling it a summary. The biggest point that is forgotten and i have mentioned it several times is "if i am pro choice does not mean i am pushing everyone to get an abortion or i would be getting one same way that if i am for the rights of homosexuals does not mean i am gay"

The main point is socio-economical and not about morals. Banning drugs did not make drugs disappear it made people who are victims of drugs more vulnerable....banning murder did not make murders not exist...banning abortion will not stop abortions. In cases like guns i am all for the ban as it is neither a necessity nor addiction nor a situation in life you cannot work around. on the other hand abortion and drugs...guess what people do them out of necessity (addiction or life situation).

In short banning abortions will make the women getting them more vulnerable and risk of dying more in the clandestine procedures they will be having instead of reducing/removing the problem.

To lower your drug addiction rates, abortion rates, robbery or any other thing you may think that is not good for the society you need to tackle its root cause and not ban it because that is just a lazy attempt. Let's look at the root causes of abortion:
Rape? misuse of contraception? extreme poverty? society not accepting a pregnant single woman? ultra-conservative parents who disown their children if that happens....? And mainly parents with unplanned children knowing that they will never be able to offer a good life for the unborn? the list goes on!
If you lower your rape numbers, teach people about contraception better, treat poverty by lowering inequalities in terms of education, women's rights and offering people their needs so they can get out of the situation, accept people who have made a mistake this is the way you can fight abortion....As well as creating a decent lifestyle for orphans where not most of them grow up from home to home and at a higher clip turn to crime.

I am pro choice but dislike abortion as most of people, it is not the hobby to anyone! it is extremely difficult physically and psychologically on the people getting it! but banning it is not a solution whatsoever same as banning drugs will not resolve a drug epidemic!

Stop portraying (you and others) people who are pro-choice as if they want to murder every fetus and make every woman get one! We all think children are precious but it is not always that easy nor that simple!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thoma

New Member
Your summary is biased as it does not take into account all opinions if you are calling it a summary. The biggest point that is forgotten and i have mentioned it several times is "if i am pro choice does not mean i am pushing everyone to get an abortion or i would be getting one same way that if i am for the rights of homosexuals does not mean i am gay"

The main point is socio-economical and not about morals. Banning drugs did not make drugs disappear it made people who are victims of drugs more vulnerable....banning murder did not make murders not exist...banning abortion will not stop abortions. In cases like guns i am all for the ban as it is neither a necessity nor addiction nor a situation in life you cannot work around. on the other hand abortion and drugs...guess what people do them out of necessity (addiction or life situation).

In short banning abortions will make the women getting them more vulnerable and risk of dying more in the clandestine procedures they will be having instead of reducing/removing the problem.

To lower your drug addiction rates, abortion rates, robbery or any other thing you may think that is not good for the society you need to tackle its root cause and not ban it because that is just a lazy attempt. Let's look at the root causes of abortion:
Rape? misuse of contraception? extreme poverty? society not accepting a pregnant single woman? ultra-conservative parents who disown their children if that happens....? And mainly parents with unplanned children knowing that they will never be able to offer a good life for the unborn? the list goes on!
If you lower your rape numbers, teach people about contraception better, treat poverty by lowering inequalities in terms of education, women's rights and offering people their needs so they can get out of the situation, accept people who have made a mistake this is the way you can fight abortion....As well as creating a decent lifestyle for orphans where not most of them grow up from home to home and at a higher clip turn to crime.

I am pro choice but dislike abortion as most of people, it is not the hobby to anyone! it is extremely difficult physically and psychologically on the people getting it! but banning it is not a solution whatsoever same as banning drugs will not resolve a drug epidemic!

Stop portraying (you and others) people who are pro-choice as if they want to murder every fetus and make every woman get one! We all think children are precious but it is not always that easy nor that simple!

Did you read the post you're replying to? Your take is already addressed there (the 'back-alley' abortions line of defense).

Also, pro-choice is pro-murder, plain and simple, and there's an argument behind that which i laid out this thread. If every human person is a human being, and, as per what i've relayed, every human being, regardless of their development stage, is a person, and that every distinct human life or human being begins/exists at the time of fertilization/fecundation, then the unborn is a human person, and choosing to abort him or her, for whatever reason, would therefore be tantamount to murder.
 

Mrsrx

Not an expert!
Staff member
Did you read the post you're replying to? Your take is already addressed there (the 'back-alley' abortions line of defense).

Also, pro-choice is pro-murder, plain and simple, and there's an argument behind that which i laid out this thread. If every human person is a human being, and, as per what i've relayed, every human being, regardless of their development stage, is a person, and that every distinct human life or human being begins/exists at the time of fertilization/fecundation, then the unborn is a human person, and choosing to abort him or her, for whatever reason, would therefore be tantamount to murder.

In cases like guns i am all for the ban as it is neither a necessity nor addiction nor a situation in life you cannot work around. on the other hand abortion and drugs...guess what people do them out of necessity (addiction or life situation).

Stop portraying (you and others) people who are pro-choice as if they want to murder every fetus and make every woman get one! We all think children are precious but it is not always that easy nor that simple!

Yes i did ....quotes from my post to reply to these points ...the rest is your opinion which was displayed and discussed and neither facts nor a summary
 

eile

Well-Known Member
@eile your input is needed. It seems @Thoma forgot to tag you.

what's your take on Thoma's post? pretty simple argument up there: if every human being, irrespective of their development stage, is a person, and the unborn is a human being and is therefore a human person, then choosing to abort the unborn, for whatever reason, is tantamount to murder, the same way choosing to kill any other innocent yet born human being/person, for whatever reason, is
 

Thoma

New Member
Yes i did ....quotes from my post to reply to these points ...the rest is your opinion which was displayed and discussed and neither facts nor a summary

I invite you to kindly demonstrate how does your reply address, let alone successfully tackle, the "back-alley abortions" section of my post, and to also demonstrate how is my post considered a 'mere opinion' (rather than 'facts').
 

Mrsrx

Not an expert!
Staff member
- 'abortion is bad and inevitable, so it should at least be safe/legal/rare in order to minimize the harm from illegal / 'back-alley' abortions'. Response: this amounts to saying 'we need to make bank robbery safe/legal/rare in order to minimize harm to bank robbers'. Both should be illegal to begin with. Speaking of safe abortions makes as much sense as speaking of safe murder.

Robbing a bank is not a need nor a necessity and if you do not do it does not condemn you, your family or a poor kid...that is how my quote replies to the back-alley abortions....and if you do not agree with that it is your opinion and not a fact for the second point.

abortion takes the life of a (distinct) human person, then the scope of liberty does not extend to abortion anymore than it does to murder.

Again that is an opinion (does not mean it agree or disagree with it) and all your rebuttals are your position on the fact and you have asked for my opinion and i gave it. Not interested in debating this much more as i am not here to preach neither religiously, scientifically or politically anyone...You are entitled to what you think and your position and so am i and was never interested here to convince anyone to take on my views.
 

Thoma

New Member
Robbing a bank is not a need nor a necessity and if you do not do it does not condemn you, your family or a poor kid...that is how my quote replies to the back-alley abortions....and if you do not agree with that it is your opinion and not a fact for the second point.



Again that is an opinion (does not mean it agree or disagree with it) and all your rebuttals are your position on the fact and you have asked for my opinion and i gave it. Not interested in debating this much more as i am not here to preach neither religiously, scientifically or politically anyone...You are entitled to what you think and your position and so am i and was never interested here to convince anyone to take on my views.

Regarding your first point: Should we lift the ban on murder and crime for the criminals and murderers' sake ('addiction', 'necessity', 'life situation', etc)? If not, then why should we do it in the case of abortion?

Regarding your second point: How is it a mere opinion that the scope of liberty does not extend to abortion anymore than it does to killing helpless, innocent, and completely dependent human beings? Do you, for instance, support the killing of the newborn by their mothers who, for argument's sake, may happen to be single? If not, then how and why would you support it if the newborn are still unborn?
 
Top