david wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<bn85qvcdcp0f2n2fk7pc6b3uv2ehib09fb@4ax.com>...
On 31 Oct 2003 06:27:13 -0800,
(david) wrote:
What is the kryponite to the pro-choice community?
That's right- questions are the kryptonite to pro-choicers - ask them
to actually prove or provide logical reasons for their positions and
what do they do? They attack you and then simply reassert their
unproven position. They erect strawmen and use ad hominem attacks
instead of actually proving their position.
For example -
Many PCs argue that the unborn aren't human beings - they say that
they are potential human beings. If you ask them to provide some kind
of scientific evidence or logic to back themselves up - they provide
nothing but more rhetoric.
Other PCs will admit that the unborn are human beings but say that the
unborn aren't persons. If you ask them what's the difference between
human beings and human persons and why should I accept your criteria
over the criteria of a racist or sexist - they again provide no
principle reason as to why anyone should accept their arbitrary
criteria.
Pro-choicers say they aren't pro-abortion but that they are
pro-choice. If you ask them "What's the problem with being
pro-abortion?" "What's so wrong with abortion that you don't want to
be in favor of it?" If abortion doesn't end the life of an innocent
human being then why aren't you in favor of it. Numerous other groups
that lobby for the making or keeping something legal aren't afraid to
say what they are in favor of - pro-marijuana group, pro-gambling
groups, pro-gun groups. None of them have a problem with the thing
they want to be legal yet pro-choicers hate being called pro-abortion.
Why is that?
I would like just one pro-choicer to honestly provide evidence to show
that the unborn aren't human beings or provide some kind of principal
reason as to why it should be legal to kill some human beings (the
unborn) but not other human beings.
Pro-choice ideology is nothing more than discrimination based on size,
environment, level of development, and degree of dependency.
Then perhaps *you* can answer what nobody else has been able to - why
should a fetus enjoy an extraordinary right afforded to no other
person - the right to use another's body against that person's will?
Extraordinary right? The right not to be killed is extraordinary?
Do you actually *read* what is written before you respond?
You are also wrong - numerous people have the right to use another
person's body - children have to be cared for even if their parents
don't want to. You can't let a 2 year-old starve just because you
don't feel like using your body.
Apparently you don't.
You also failed to try to answer any of my questions - you avoided
them completely - proving once again that questions are pro-choicers
kryptonite.
---
Militant Agnostic:
I don't know and you don't either.
.
