| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Eden" |
| Date: |
10 Mar 2006 12:07:07 AM |
| Object: |
Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
By Todd M. Aglialoro
Crisis
http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2004/aglialoro.htm
In that passage from Orthodoxy so familiar that it is
almost now cliché, G. K. Chesterton wrote that there
are a thousand angles at which a man may fall but only
one at which he stands. By this he argued for the
unique, enduring character of orthodox Church doctrine,
of the one, true, upstanding strand of Right Teaching.
Though the same tired heresies may reappear to contest
it—mutated, renamed, warmed-over—the old, wild truth
remains standing, "reeling but erect."
This well-worn lesson takes on a new freshness, I
think, when applied to the culture war. The wild truths
that inform Christian ethics—our insistence on a moral
universe, on a real human nature with its own
teleology, on the transcendent significance of human
acts and human relationships—also reel but remain erect
in the face of perennial challenges. We are not gods.
Moral truth is something we discover, not invent. From
the Garden of Eden to the Supreme Court of the United
States, we have fought the same battle under different
banners.
In what is probably the modern culture battle par
excellence, the fight against abortion, we see
displayed with perfect clarity the principle of a
single upright truth (that directly killing an unborn
child is an evil and a crime) being contested by a
rotation of errors; taking turns or working in tandem,
passing in and out of fashion, each seizing upon the
vocabulary, events, and moods of the cultural moment
until the next comes along to supplant it.
In some cases cultural developments render one of them
obsolete. In the years shortly after Roe v. Wade,
abortion debates inevitably featured three words the
pro-abortion side considered a trump card: "blob of
tissue." This factually empty but sound-bite–perfect
catchphrase made a great impact with its implication
that the fetus was roughly equivalent to a ball of
snot. Which put abortion about on par with picking your
nose: bad form, a messy affair that ought to be kept
private, but nothing to get overly excited about.
Of course, advances in the study of human embryology,
most notably the window to the womb afforded by the
sonogram, all but pulled the teeth from the "blob of
tissue" canard. The 1980 film The Silent Scream, an
ultrasound depiction of an abortion at eleven weeks,
provided a chilling, graphic look at abortion's inner
workings. And today, expectant mothers keep pictures
of their "blobs of tissue" on the refrigerator. They
make copies and stuff them into Christmas cards.
So that particular line was no longer viable. But it
wouldn't be the last. More would follow, and we who are
engaged in the culture have surely heard most of them.
However, even for those who have heard them all, I
think it can be valuable to gather them up and define
them; to identify their originators, exemplars, and
champions; to understand their appeal; and to consider
how to counter them. Let us now look, then, at five (a
nice number, though by no means exhaustive) of
history's most insidious pro-abortion arguments.
1. 'Don't Say the "A" word': NARAL
Names are important to propagandists. One could hardly
imagine, for example, Planned Parenthood enjoying the
status it does had it not in 1942 dropped "American
Birth Control League" in favor of its current
benevolent-sounding moniker. What if Greenpeace had
instead called itself "Vegan Freaks Against Ambergris"?
Would society still look on that organization in the
indulgently tolerant way it does today? Would Bono
still play its benefit concerts? There are some things
we are just never meant to know.
Early last year, in a calculated PR move, the National
Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) changed its name
to NARAL Pro-Choice America. Amazingly, the new name is
even more cumbersome than the old. "NARAL" juts out at
the front like "Nokia" before "Sugar Bowl." But this
name change was not about streamlining signage and
business cards. It was an attempt to deflect notice
from the singular object of NARAL's 30-plus years of
existence—unlimited access to abortion-on-demand—and
toward broader, more high-minded, and less gruesome
concepts of gender equality and personal
self-determination. The change was timed to coincide
with a multimillion-dollar ad campaign depicting the
new-and-improved NARAL not so much as an advocate of
"abortion rights" as a defender of women's suffrage,
satellite TV, and 31 Flavors.
Semantic games have always been part of the battle, of
course. No one—no one, mind you—is "pro-abortion."
Folks are "pro-choice," "pro–reproductive rights," or,
slightly more courageously, "pro–abortion rights." In
each case, even the last, the emphasis is steered away
from the repugnant reality of abortion itself—a sure
loser in focus groups time and time again. Whenever we
debate abortion or write a letter to the editor, we
engage in a struggle for the linguistic high ground.
But NARAL's gambit takes things to a new level. By all
accounts, abortion's popularity is waning steadily.
Recent polls show high school and college students
reporting pro-life leanings in growing numbers. The
pro-life side's rare propaganda advantage in the
partial-birth abortion debate has riveted public
attention with clinically graphic descriptions of the
violence abortion inflicts on the unborn.
Clearly, the long-term survival strategy, from NARAL's
perspective, is to make the abortion debate about
anything but abortion.
It can be wearying sometimes, but the counter-strategy
is continually to return the debate to where it
belongs: the humanity of the unborn child and his right
to life. It may also be effective to ask just why
abortion is so repugnant to so many.
.
|
|
| User: "sanitys IittIe helper" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
10 Mar 2006 01:49:14 AM |
|
|
Eden wrote:
By Todd M. Aglialoro
Crisis
http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2004/aglialoro.htm
<major snippage>
This well-worn lesson takes on a new freshness, I
think, when applied to the culture war. The wild truths
that inform Christian ethics—our insistence on a moral
universe, on a real human nature with its own
teleology, on the transcendent significance of human
acts and human relationships—also reel but remain erect
in the face of perennial challenges. We are not gods.
Moral truth is something we discover, not invent. From
the Garden of Eden to the Supreme Court of the United
States, we have fought the same battle under different
banners.
In what is probably the modern culture battle par
excellence, the fight against abortion, we see
displayed with perfect clarity the principle of a
single upright truth (that directly killing an unborn
child is an evil and a crime) being contested by a
rotation of errors;
Scientific facts are not errors, and a box of eggs is not an uncooked
quiche.
It may also be effective to ask just why
abortion is so repugnant to so many.
Because they are brainwashed religious robots, mostly. Can you argue for
a total ban on abortion at any term of gestation without bringing God
into the argument? If you do so, you also have to prove that God exists,
which requires a damn sight more than just parchuting the word
'teleology' into the argument.
Also, can _you_ argue anything at all instead of quote-mining?
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Atheist for life.
Religion is a social contract between those who would rule us and those
who won't deal with their own *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
10 Mar 2006 04:41:54 AM |
|
|
"sanity's IittIe helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote
Can you argue for a total ban on abortion at any term of gestation without
bringing God into the argument? If you do so, you also have to prove that
God exists, which requires a damn sight more than just parchuting the word
'teleology' into the argument.
What the hell does God have to do with it? We find all sorts of acts to be
morally repugnant without reference to God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
11 Mar 2006 02:17:24 PM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"sanity's IittIe helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote
Can you argue for a total ban on abortion at any term of gestation without
bringing God into the argument? If you do so, you also have to prove that
God exists, which requires a damn sight more than just parchuting the word
'teleology' into the argument.
What the hell does God have to do with it? We find all sorts of acts to be
morally repugnant without reference to God.
Because you consider yourself to be the equal of God and your very
farts to be Absolute Truth and Not To Be Questioned.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
11 Mar 2006 04:35:16 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:44133054$0$58095$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"sanity's IittIe helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote
Can you argue for a total ban on abortion at any term of gestation
without
bringing God into the argument? If you do so, you also have to prove
that
God exists, which requires a damn sight more than just parchuting the
word
'teleology' into the argument.
What the hell does God have to do with it? We find all sorts of acts to be
morally repugnant without reference to God.
Because you consider yourself to be the equal of God and your very
farts to be Absolute Truth and Not To Be Questioned.
I apologize for the fact that my words sound like truth and yours are the
equivalent of a bad smell, that must be difficult for you. It's not my
problem though..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
12 Mar 2006 12:02:15 AM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"sanity's IittIe helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote
Can you argue for a total ban on abortion at any term of gestation
without
bringing God into the argument? If you do so, you also have to prove
that
God exists, which requires a damn sight more than just parchuting the
word
'teleology' into the argument.
What the hell does God have to do with it? We find all sorts of acts to be
morally repugnant without reference to God.
Because you consider yourself to be the equal of God and your very
farts to be Absolute Truth and Not To Be Questioned.
I apologize for the fact that my words sound like truth
They sound, and are, outright lies, as many people have pointed out.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
12 Mar 2006 02:35:06 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4413b967$0$58036$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"sanity's IittIe helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote
Can you argue for a total ban on abortion at any term of gestation
without
bringing God into the argument? If you do so, you also have to prove
that
God exists, which requires a damn sight more than just parchuting the
word
'teleology' into the argument.
What the hell does God have to do with it? We find all sorts of acts to
be
morally repugnant without reference to God.
Because you consider yourself to be the equal of God and your very
farts to be Absolute Truth and Not To Be Questioned.
I apologize for the fact that my words sound like truth
They sound, and are
Exactly.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
11 Mar 2006 05:19:58 PM |
|
|
In article <1216k51n6amg977@news.supernews.com>,
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
I apologize
as you should.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
11 Mar 2006 08:59:17 PM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
I apologize
as you should.
If I learn to lie and twist words, distract, avoid the issues and heckle
people like you do, will you be my friend?
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
11 Mar 2006 09:18:08 PM |
|
|
In article <12173k6395kve42@news.supernews.com>,
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
I apologize
as you should.
If I learn to lie and twist words, distract, avoid the issues and heckle
people
you're doing very well at all of those things, child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
12 Mar 2006 02:34:39 AM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-ABEC40.22180811032006@individual.net...
In article <12173k6395kve42@news.supernews.com>,
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
I apologize
as you should.
If I learn to lie and twist words, distract, avoid the issues and heckle
people
you're doing very well at all of those things, child.
Ah shucks, yer just saying that...
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
12 Mar 2006 06:54:09 AM |
|
|
In article <1217n90jjkl4t68@news.supernews.com>,
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-ABEC40.22180811032006@individual.net...
In article <12173k6395kve42@news.supernews.com>,
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
I apologize
as you should.
If I learn to lie and twist words, distract, avoid the issues and heckle
people
you're doing very well at all of those things, child.
Ah shucks, yer just saying that...
not just me; you've impressed several with your dishonesty.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
10 Mar 2006 04:12:10 PM |
|
|
Dutch wrote:
"sanity's IittIe helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote
Can you argue for a total ban on abortion at any term of gestation without
bringing God into the argument? If you do so, you also have to prove that
God exists, which requires a damn sight more than just parchuting the word
'teleology' into the argument.
What the hell does God have to do with it? We find all sorts of acts to be
morally repugnant without reference to God.
Is that a no?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
10 Mar 2006 08:06:09 PM |
|
|
"Ash" <ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote
Dutch wrote:
"sanity's IittIe helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote
Can you argue for a total ban on abortion at any term of gestation
without bringing God into the argument? If you do so, you also have to
prove that God exists, which requires a damn sight more than just
parchuting the word 'teleology' into the argument.
What the hell does God have to do with it? We find all sorts of acts to
be morally repugnant without reference to God.
Is that a no?
No.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
10 Mar 2006 08:16:07 AM |
|
|
In article <1212lvgpcj51777@news.supernews.com>, Dutch <no@email.com>
wrote:
"sanity's IittIe helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote
Can you argue for a total ban on abortion at any term of gestation without
bringing God into the argument? If you do so, you also have to prove that
God exists, which requires a damn sight more than just parchuting the word
'teleology' into the argument.
What the hell does God have to do with it? We find all sorts of acts to be
morally repugnant without reference to God.
So what is so "morally repugnant" about abortion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
10 Mar 2006 04:39:33 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
In article <1212lvgpcj51777@news.supernews.com>, Dutch <no@email.com>
wrote:
"sanity's IittIe helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote
Can you argue for a total ban on abortion at any term of gestation
without
bringing God into the argument? If you do so, you also have to prove
that
God exists, which requires a damn sight more than just parchuting the
word
'teleology' into the argument.
What the hell does God have to do with it? We find all sorts of acts to
be
morally repugnant without reference to God.
So what is so "morally repugnant" about abortion?
Since you have chosen to wear blinkers I'll use an analogy you might relate
to. Imagine a mother deciding right *after birth* that she would prefer not
to have a child, so she takes a hammer, crushes the baby's delicate skull
and tosses it in a waste bin. Now imagine that in your perception an
unborn/fetus/ is just as precious as that baby. Now think about an abortion
in those terms.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
11 Mar 2006 02:18:27 PM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com>
"sanity's IittIe helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote
Can you argue for a total ban on abortion at any term of gestation
without
bringing God into the argument? If you do so, you also have to prove
that
God exists, which requires a damn sight more than just parchuting the
word
'teleology' into the argument.
What the hell does God have to do with it? We find all sorts of acts to
be
morally repugnant without reference to God.
So what is so "morally repugnant" about abortion?
Since you have chosen to wear blinkers I'll use an analogy you might relate
to.
Notice that the pro-liar isn't actually capable of answering the
question. He expects everybody to obey but doesn't consider that
people deserve any justification
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
11 Mar 2006 04:33:33 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:44133093$0$58095$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com>
"sanity's IittIe helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote
Can you argue for a total ban on abortion at any term of gestation
without
bringing God into the argument? If you do so, you also have to prove
that
God exists, which requires a damn sight more than just parchuting the
word
'teleology' into the argument.
What the hell does God have to do with it? We find all sorts of acts to
be
morally repugnant without reference to God.
So what is so "morally repugnant" about abortion?
Since you have chosen to wear blinkers I'll use an analogy you might
relate
to.
Notice that the pro-liar isn't actually capable of answering the
question. He expects everybody to obey but doesn't consider that
people deserve any justification
You snipped the answer you unethical idiot.
I did not demand obedience, I simply answered a sensible question.
Here's the answer again, read it slowly one hundred times.
I'll use an analogy you might relate
to. Imagine a mother deciding right *after birth* that she would prefer not
to have a child, so she takes a hammer, crushes the baby's delicate skull
and tosses it in a waste bin. Now imagine that in your perception an
unborn/fetus/ is just as precious as that baby. Now think about an abortion
in those terms.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
12 Mar 2006 12:01:40 AM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com>
"sanity's IittIe helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote
Can you argue for a total ban on abortion at any term of gestation
without
bringing God into the argument? If you do so, you also have to prove
that
God exists, which requires a damn sight more than just parchuting the
word
'teleology' into the argument.
What the hell does God have to do with it? We find all sorts of acts to
be
morally repugnant without reference to God.
So what is so "morally repugnant" about abortion?
Since you have chosen to wear blinkers I'll use an analogy you might
relate
to.
Notice that the pro-liar isn't actually capable of answering the
question. He expects everybody to obey but doesn't consider that
people deserve any justification
You snipped the answer you unethical idiot.
You're lying again, *****.
I did not demand obedience,
Yes you do, coward. You say that women should be forced to provide
the use of their bodies.
Here's the answer again, read it slowly one hundred times.
I'll use an analogy you might relate
An analogy isn't an answer, dumbshit, especially when it's not a
valid analogy. It's an evasion when a coward don't want to provide
a simple answer.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
12 Mar 2006 02:33:20 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4413b944$0$58036$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com>
"sanity's IittIe helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote
Can you argue for a total ban on abortion at any term of gestation
without
bringing God into the argument? If you do so, you also have to
prove
that
God exists, which requires a damn sight more than just parchuting
the
word
'teleology' into the argument.
What the hell does God have to do with it? We find all sorts of acts
to
be
morally repugnant without reference to God.
So what is so "morally repugnant" about abortion?
Since you have chosen to wear blinkers I'll use an analogy you might
relate
to.
Notice that the pro-liar isn't actually capable of answering the
question. He expects everybody to obey but doesn't consider that
people deserve any justification
You snipped the answer you unethical idiot.
You're lying again, *****.
I did not demand obedience,
Yes you do, coward. You say that women should be forced to provide
the use of their bodies.
Here's the answer again, read it slowly one hundred times.
I'll use an analogy you might relate
An analogy isn't an answer,
"So what is so "morally repugnant" about abortion?" is explained beautifully
by the analogy. You should read it a hundred more times.
Imagine a mother deciding right *after birth* that she would prefer not
to have a child, so she takes a hammer, crushes the baby's delicate skull
and tosses it in a waste bin. Now imagine that in your perception an
unborn/fetus/ is just as precious as that baby. Now think about an abortion
in those terms.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
12 Mar 2006 12:17:49 PM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4413b944$0$58036$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com>
"sanity's IittIe helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote
Can you argue for a total ban on abortion at any term of gestation
without
bringing God into the argument? If you do so, you also have to
prove
that
God exists, which requires a damn sight more than just parchuting
the
word
'teleology' into the argument.
What the hell does God have to do with it? We find all sorts of acts
to
be
morally repugnant without reference to God.
So what is so "morally repugnant" about abortion?
Since you have chosen to wear blinkers I'll use an analogy you might
relate
to.
Notice that the pro-liar isn't actually capable of answering the
question. He expects everybody to obey but doesn't consider that
people deserve any justification
You snipped the answer you unethical idiot.
You're lying again, *****.
I did not demand obedience,
Yes you do, coward. You say that women should be forced to provide
the use of their bodies.
Here's the answer again, read it slowly one hundred times.
I'll use an analogy you might relate
An analogy isn't an answer,
"So what is so "morally repugnant" about abortion?" is explained beautifully
by the analogy.
False analogies are used to lie. They are not honest answers/
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
14 Mar 2006 07:57:53 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4413b944$0$58036$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com>
"sanity's IittIe helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote
Can you argue for a total ban on abortion at any term of
gestation
without
bringing God into the argument? If you do so, you also have to
prove
that
God exists, which requires a damn sight more than just parchuting
the
word
'teleology' into the argument.
What the hell does God have to do with it? We find all sorts of
acts
to
be
morally repugnant without reference to God.
So what is so "morally repugnant" about abortion?
Since you have chosen to wear blinkers I'll use an analogy you might
relate
to.
Notice that the pro-liar isn't actually capable of answering the
question. He expects everybody to obey but doesn't consider that
people deserve any justification
You snipped the answer you unethical idiot.
You're lying again, *****.
I did not demand obedience,
Yes you do, coward. You say that women should be forced to provide
the use of their bodies.
Here's the answer again, read it slowly one hundred times.
I'll use an analogy you might relate
An analogy isn't an answer,
"So what is so "morally repugnant" about abortion?" is explained
beautifully
by the analogy.
False analogies are used to lie. They are not honest answers/
Abortion is morally repugnant because it kills innocent human lives.
Don't waste your breath with the usual bs about sperm and ova. They are not
human lives.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
16 Mar 2006 10:28:34 AM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com>
"sanity's IittIe helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote
Can you argue for a total ban on abortion at any term of
gestation
without
bringing God into the argument? If you do so, you also have to
prove
that
God exists, which requires a damn sight more than just parchuting
the
word
'teleology' into the argument.
What the hell does God have to do with it? We find all sorts of
acts
to
be
morally repugnant without reference to God.
So what is so "morally repugnant" about abortion?
Since you have chosen to wear blinkers I'll use an analogy you might
relate
to.
Notice that the pro-liar isn't actually capable of answering the
question. He expects everybody to obey but doesn't consider that
people deserve any justification
You snipped the answer you unethical idiot.
You're lying again, *****.
I did not demand obedience,
Yes you do, coward. You say that women should be forced to provide
the use of their bodies.
Here's the answer again, read it slowly one hundred times.
I'll use an analogy you might relate
An analogy isn't an answer,
"So what is so "morally repugnant" about abortion?" is explained
beautifully
by the analogy.
False analogies are used to lie. They are not honest answers/
Abortion is morally repugnant because it kills innocent human lives.
Then you are a murderer.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nuwsguy" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
10 Mar 2006 10:18:09 PM |
|
|
Dutch wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
In article <1212lvgpcj51777@news.supernews.com>, Dutch <no@email.com>
wrote:
"sanity's IittIe helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote
Can you argue for a total ban on abortion at any term of gestation
without
bringing God into the argument? If you do so, you also have to prove
that
God exists, which requires a damn sight more than just parchuting the
word
'teleology' into the argument.
What the hell does God have to do with it? We find all sorts of acts to
be
morally repugnant without reference to God.
So what is so "morally repugnant" about abortion?
Since you have chosen to wear blinkers I'll use an analogy you might relate
to. Imagine a mother deciding right *after birth* that she would prefer not
to have a child, so she takes a hammer, crushes the baby's delicate skull
and tosses it in a waste bin. Now imagine that in your perception an
unborn/fetus/ is just as precious as that baby. Now think about an abortion
in those terms.
A major difference is that a baby is self sufficient a fetus
is not. It must be hosted. The host must give their consent
to this or they have been made a slave to the other. If
a fetus has the right to be in a woman without her consent
then so does anyone. You are calling for legalization of
rape.
If you want it, you carry it, simple as that. Don't enslave
girls to be a incubator to a parasite they do not want in
their bodies. If you want an incubator, get a light bulb,
not a girl.
Where is your call for the responsibility of the male who
shot his nuts into this girl? Girls can only get pregnant if
the male is irresponsible with "their" ejaculate material.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank ODwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
10 Mar 2006 04:55:16 PM |
|
|
Dutch wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
In article <1212lvgpcj51777@news.supernews.com>, Dutch <no@email.com>
wrote:
"sanity's IittIe helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote
Can you argue for a total ban on abortion at any term of gestation
without
bringing God into the argument? If you do so, you also have to prove
that
God exists, which requires a damn sight more than just parchuting the
word
'teleology' into the argument.
What the hell does God have to do with it? We find all sorts of acts to
be
morally repugnant without reference to God.
So what is so "morally repugnant" about abortion?
Since you have chosen to wear blinkers I'll use an analogy you might relate
to. Imagine a mother deciding right *after birth* that she would prefer not
to have a child, so she takes a hammer, crushes the baby's delicate skull
and tosses it in a waste bin. Now imagine that in your perception an
unborn/fetus/ is just as precious as that baby. Now think about an abortion
in those terms.
Imagine that in your perception a skin cell is just as precious as that
baby. Now think of exfoliation in those terms.
Also imagine that you were faced with a debating opponent who insisted
that a skin cell or an unfertilised ovum was a "human being" and that
anyone who said otherwise was denying facts. Now think about your
argument in those terms, and imagine the frustration of someone trying
to explain to you that your whole moral outlook is based on a silly pun
on the terms "human being" and "alive".
- Frank
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
11 Mar 2006 09:04:40 AM |
|
|
In article <1142031316.922017.29140@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
Frank O'Dwyer <batsignal1@gmail.com> wrote:
Dutch wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
In article <1212lvgpcj51777@news.supernews.com>, Dutch <no@email.com>
wrote:
"sanity's IittIe helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote
Can you argue for a total ban on abortion at any term of gestation
without
bringing God into the argument? If you do so, you also have to prove
that
God exists, which requires a damn sight more than just parchuting the
word
'teleology' into the argument.
What the hell does God have to do with it? We find all sorts of acts to
be
morally repugnant without reference to God.
So what is so "morally repugnant" about abortion?
Since you have chosen to wear blinkers I'll use an analogy you might relate
to. Imagine a mother deciding right *after birth* that she would prefer not
to have a child, so she takes a hammer, crushes the baby's delicate skull
and tosses it in a waste bin. Now imagine that in your perception an
unborn/fetus/ is just as precious as that baby. Now think about an abortion
in those terms.
Imagine that in your perception a skin cell is just as precious as that
baby. Now think of exfoliation in those terms.
Also imagine that you were faced with a debating opponent who insisted
that a skin cell or an unfertilised ovum was a "human being" and that
anyone who said otherwise was denying facts. Now think about your
argument in those terms, and imagine the frustration of someone trying
to explain to you that your whole moral outlook is based on a silly pun
on the terms "human being" and "alive".
LOL! Exactly!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
11 Mar 2006 04:30:20 PM |
|
|
<piggybacking>
Frank O'Dwyer <batsignal1@gmail.com> wrote:
Dutch wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
In article <1212lvgpcj51777@news.supernews.com>, Dutch <no@email.com>
wrote:
"sanity's IittIe helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote
Can you argue for a total ban on abortion at any term of gestation
without
bringing God into the argument? If you do so, you also have to
prove
that
God exists, which requires a damn sight more than just parchuting
the
word
'teleology' into the argument.
What the hell does God have to do with it? We find all sorts of acts
to
be
morally repugnant without reference to God.
So what is so "morally repugnant" about abortion?
Since you have chosen to wear blinkers I'll use an analogy you might
relate
to. Imagine a mother deciding right *after birth* that she would prefer
not
to have a child, so she takes a hammer, crushes the baby's delicate
skull
and tosses it in a waste bin. Now imagine that in your perception an
unborn/fetus/ is just as precious as that baby. Now think about an
abortion
in those terms.
Imagine that in your perception a skin cell is just as precious as that
baby. Now think of exfoliation in those terms.
Reductio ad absurdum. Think of a piece of toilet paper as just as precious
as a thousand-dollar bill and you'd be rich.
Also imagine that you were faced with a debating opponent who insisted
that a skin cell or an unfertilised ovum was a "human being" and that
anyone who said otherwise was denying facts.
But you're not facing such a person, you are facing one presenting the fact
that a human *organism* is not changed fundamentally by travelling down a
birth canal, and that a fetus *will* inevitably and rapidly become a living,
breathing person if not killed. Skin cells and unfertilized ovums will not.
Now think about your
argument in those terms, and imagine the frustration of someone trying
to explain to you that your whole moral outlook is based on a silly pun
on the terms "human being" and "alive".
Are *you* a silly pun? Were you *ever* a "silly pun" at any time in your
development since the time your mother's egg and father's sperm met and you
came into existence? Were you a "silly pun" while your cells began to divide
and your organs began to take shape? Did the fact that Roe v Wade allowed
your mother the right to kill you make you a "silly pun"?
You are resting on fallacies and equivocations in order to support the
dehumanization of fetuses. Why, what's in it for you? Is this a late
twentieth century pseudo-intellectual fashion statement?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank ODwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
12 Mar 2006 04:20:35 PM |
|
|
Dutch wrote:
<piggybacking>
Frank O'Dwyer <batsignal1@gmail.com> wrote:
Dutch wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
In article <1212lvgpcj51777@news.supernews.com>, Dutch <no@email.com>
wrote:
"sanity's IittIe helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote
Can you argue for a total ban on abortion at any term of gestation
without
bringing God into the argument? If you do so, you also have to
prove
that
God exists, which requires a damn sight more than just parchuting
the
word
'teleology' into the argument.
What the hell does God have to do with it? We find all sorts of acts
to
be
morally repugnant without reference to God.
So what is so "morally repugnant" about abortion?
Since you have chosen to wear blinkers I'll use an analogy you might
relate
to. Imagine a mother deciding right *after birth* that she would prefer
not
to have a child, so she takes a hammer, crushes the baby's delicate
skull
and tosses it in a waste bin. Now imagine that in your perception an
unborn/fetus/ is just as precious as that baby. Now think about an
abortion
in those terms.
Imagine that in your perception a skin cell is just as precious as that
baby. Now think of exfoliation in those terms.
Reductio ad absurdum.
That's right, I did!
Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy. FYI.
Think of a piece of toilet paper as just as precious
as a thousand-dollar bill and you'd be rich.
Yet that's your argument above.
Also imagine that you were faced with a debating opponent who insisted
that a skin cell or an unfertilised ovum was a "human being" and that
anyone who said otherwise was denying facts.
But you're not facing such a person, you are facing one presenting the fact
that a human *organism* is not changed fundamentally by travelling down a
birth canal,
A fertilised ovum has to do quite a bit more than that.
And what makes you think that the 'human organism' has to change before
the ethics of the situation can change anyway? If you travel down
pennsylvania avenue you will not fundamentally change either, but try
it brandishing a sword and shouting "allahu akbar" and see how far you
get.
Circumstances do matter.
and that a fetus *will* inevitably and rapidly become a living,
breathing person if not killed.
Not inevitably and not rapidly, no not even if "not killed".
Skin cells and unfertilized ovums will not.
Yet you were once an unfertilised ovum.
Now think about your
argument in those terms, and imagine the frustration of someone trying
to explain to you that your whole moral outlook is based on a silly pun
on the terms "human being" and "alive".
Are *you* a silly pun? Were you *ever* a "silly pun" at any time in your
development since the time your mother's egg and father's sperm met and you
came into existence?
Assuming your conclusion.
Were you a "silly pun" when "you" were an unfertilised ovum?
Were you a "silly pun" while your cells began to divide
and your organs began to take shape? Did the fact that Roe v Wade allowed
your mother the right to kill you make you a "silly pun"?
Abortion is not based on any right to kill.
You are resting on fallacies and equivocations
You shouldn't use big words you don't understand.
- Frank
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
12 Mar 2006 12:49:13 PM |
|
|
In article <1216jrsakf6avf5@news.supernews.com>, Dutch <no@email.com>
wrote:
<piggybacking>
Frank O'Dwyer <batsignal1@gmail.com> wrote:
Dutch wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
In article <1212lvgpcj51777@news.supernews.com>, Dutch <no@email.com>
wrote:
"sanity's IittIe helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote
Can you argue for a total ban on abortion at any term of gestation
without
bringing God into the argument? If you do so, you also have to
prove
that
God exists, which requires a damn sight more than just parchuting
the
word
'teleology' into the argument.
What the hell does God have to do with it? We find all sorts of acts
to
be
morally repugnant without reference to God.
So what is so "morally repugnant" about abortion?
Since you have chosen to wear blinkers I'll use an analogy you might
relate
to. Imagine a mother deciding right *after birth* that she would prefer
not
to have a child, so she takes a hammer, crushes the baby's delicate
skull
and tosses it in a waste bin. Now imagine that in your perception an
unborn/fetus/ is just as precious as that baby. Now think about an
abortion
in those terms.
Imagine that in your perception a skin cell is just as precious as that
baby. Now think of exfoliation in those terms.
Reductio ad absurdum. Think of a piece of toilet paper as just as precious
as a thousand-dollar bill and you'd be rich.
Do "arguments" like this impress those around you? His comment was
right on point and apparently you have no rebuttal.
Also imagine that you were faced with a debating opponent who insisted
that a skin cell or an unfertilised ovum was a "human being" and that
anyone who said otherwise was denying facts.
But you're not facing such a person, you are facing one presenting the fact
that a human *organism* is not changed fundamentally by travelling down a
birth canal, and that a fetus *will* inevitably and rapidly become a living,
breathing person if not killed. Skin cells and unfertilized ovums will not.
And this is relevant how?
Now think about your
argument in those terms, and imagine the frustration of someone trying
to explain to you that your whole moral outlook is based on a silly pun
on the terms "human being" and "alive".
Are *you* a silly pun? Were you *ever* a "silly pun" at any time in your
development since the time your mother's egg and father's sperm met and you
came into existence? Were you a "silly pun" while your cells began to divide
and your organs began to take shape? Did the fact that Roe v Wade allowed
your mother the right to kill you make you a "silly pun"?
You are resting on fallacies and equivocations in order to support the
dehumanization of fetuses. Why, what's in it for you? Is this a late
twentieth century pseudo-intellectual fashion statement?
How many children have you adopted?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
14 Mar 2006 06:58:31 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:120320061049139534%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <1216jrsakf6avf5@news.supernews.com>, Dutch <no@email.com>
wrote:
<piggybacking>
Frank O'Dwyer <batsignal1@gmail.com> wrote:
Dutch wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
In article <1212lvgpcj51777@news.supernews.com>, Dutch
<no@email.com>
wrote:
"sanity's IittIe helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote
Can you argue for a total ban on abortion at any term of
gestation
without
bringing God into the argument? If you do so, you also have to
prove
that
God exists, which requires a damn sight more than just
parchuting
the
word
'teleology' into the argument.
What the hell does God have to do with it? We find all sorts of
acts
to
be
morally repugnant without reference to God.
So what is so "morally repugnant" about abortion?
Since you have chosen to wear blinkers I'll use an analogy you might
relate
to. Imagine a mother deciding right *after birth* that she would
prefer
not
to have a child, so she takes a hammer, crushes the baby's delicate
skull
and tosses it in a waste bin. Now imagine that in your perception an
unborn/fetus/ is just as precious as that baby. Now think about an
abortion
in those terms.
Imagine that in your perception a skin cell is just as precious as
that
baby. Now think of exfoliation in those terms.
Reductio ad absurdum. Think of a piece of toilet paper as just as
precious
as a thousand-dollar bill and you'd be rich.
Do "arguments" like this impress those around you?
Do "remarks" like *that* impress *anyone*?
His comment was
right on point
His comment was an absurdity. Shall we consider snot to be human lives too?
and apparently you have no rebuttal.
My rebuttal was to illustrate that his point was an aburdity. What other
rebuttals are needed for absurdities?
Also imagine that you were faced with a debating opponent who insisted
that a skin cell or an unfertilised ovum was a "human being" and that
anyone who said otherwise was denying facts.
But you're not facing such a person, you are facing one presenting the
fact
that a human *organism* is not changed fundamentally by travelling down a
birth canal, and that a fetus *will* inevitably and rapidly become a
living,
breathing person if not killed. Skin cells and unfertilized ovums will
not.
And this is relevant how?
It seems apparent to me, what don't you understand?
Now think about your
argument in those terms, and imagine the frustration of someone trying
to explain to you that your whole moral outlook is based on a silly
pun
on the terms "human being" and "alive".
Are *you* a silly pun? Were you *ever* a "silly pun" at any time in your
development since the time your mother's egg and father's sperm met and
you
came into existence? Were you a "silly pun" while your cells began to
divide
and your organs began to take shape? Did the fact that Roe v Wade allowed
your mother the right to kill you make you a "silly pun"?
You are resting on fallacies and equivocations in order to support the
dehumanization of fetuses. Why, what's in it for you? Is this a late
twentieth century pseudo-intellectual fashion statement?
How many children have you adopted?
Huh? What POSSIBLE relevance does that have to the question of the morality
of abortion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
14 Mar 2006 07:42:19 PM |
|
|
"Dutch" <no@email.com> said:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:120320061049139534%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <1216jrsakf6avf5@news.supernews.com>, Dutch <no@email.com>
wrote:
<piggybacking>
Frank O'Dwyer <batsignal1@gmail.com> wrote:
Dutch wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
In article <1212lvgpcj51777@news.supernews.com>, Dutch
<no@email.com>
wrote:
"sanity's IittIe helper" <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote
Can you argue for a total ban on abortion at any term of
gestation
without
bringing God into the argument? If you do so, you also have to
prove
that
God exists, which requires a damn sight more than just
parchuting
the
word
'teleology' into the argument.
What the hell does God have to do with it? We find all sorts of
acts
to
be
morally repugnant without reference to God.
So what is so "morally repugnant" about abortion?
Since you have chosen to wear blinkers I'll use an analogy you might
relate
to. Imagine a mother deciding right *after birth* that she would
prefer
not
to have a child, so she takes a hammer, crushes the baby's delicate
skull
and tosses it in a waste bin. Now imagine that in your perception an
unborn/fetus/ is just as precious as that baby. Now think about an
abortion
in those terms.
Imagine that in your perception a skin cell is just as precious as
that
baby. Now think of exfoliation in those terms.
Reductio ad absurdum. Think of a piece of toilet paper as just as
precious
as a thousand-dollar bill and you'd be rich.
Do "arguments" like this impress those around you?
Do "remarks" like *that* impress *anyone*?
His comment was
right on point
His comment was an absurdity. Shall we consider snot to be human lives too?
and apparently you have no rebuttal.
My rebuttal was to illustrate that his point was an aburdity. What other
rebuttals are needed for absurdities?
Also imagine that you were faced with a debating opponent who insisted
that a skin cell or an unfertilised ovum was a "human being" and that
anyone who said otherwise was denying facts.
But you're not facing such a person, you are facing one presenting the
fact
that a human *organism* is not changed fundamentally by travelling down a
birth canal, and that a fetus *will* inevitably and rapidly become a
living,
breathing person if not killed. Skin cells and unfertilized ovums will
not.
And this is relevant how?
It seems apparent to me, what don't you understand?
Now think about your
argument in those terms, and imagine the frustration of someone trying
to explain to you that your whole moral outlook is based on a silly
pun
on the terms "human being" and "alive".
Are *you* a silly pun? Were you *ever* a "silly pun" at any time in your
development since the time your mother's egg and father's sperm met and
you
came into existence? Were you a "silly pun" while your cells began to
divide
and your organs began to take shape? Did the fact that Roe v Wade allowed
your mother the right to kill you make you a "silly pun"?
You are resting on fallacies and equivocations in order to support the
dehumanization of fetuses. Why, what's in it for you? Is this a late
twentieth century pseudo-intellectual fashion statement?
How many children have you adopted?
Huh? What POSSIBLE relevance does that have to the question of the morality
of abortion?
Has anybody asked you to write the law you would want enforced, about
abortion? I'd like to know what it would say. If there is the
possibility of conception having occurred, what is it illegal to do?
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
