ABORTION: The science is wrong

[RACJ]

If you won’t want to answer the question, fine. No need to throw a rhetorical temper tantrum.

I’m just trying to find out what is the “True centrist position” on killing the innocent. I believe there is no “centrist” position on killing the innocent - I doubt any centrist would be for killing the innocent. There are two sides: kill all innocents or kill no innocents. Dehumanize all or dehumanize none. Should we kill only SOME of the innocent? Should we dehumanize SOME? That’s the only compromise between the two positions, and it is horrible.

Again, you’re welcome to Dodge the question. I’m sure you’ll just rail against me and hate me for believing that nobody should be dehumanized.

And to remind you: I’m not talking about the “negative health consequences for the mother” you keep bringing up. I don’t use that as a measuring stick of the morality/immorality of abortion. Must be some red-herring.

Centrist appaently believes that a woman could abort her child and bear it too! I come down on the side of life, whether or not he thinks of me as *extreme*. :o Rob

 

[Man]

There are laws in Europe that disclose side effects and discuss actually alternatives, as well as making a waiting period, for elective abortion.

In the US, really, the major player in Anti-Christian feminist philosophy, and spreading it to the ends of the world, it is difficult to get good studies. It is difficult elsewhere to some extent to, but you can see in some countries socialist health care system that side effects are actually addressed prior to the abortion.

This group believes in lying and abortion being legal at all costs. This includes de-humanizing life by stating that life beginning at conception is only an opinion, even if using any other point seems to be just a method of allowing abortion to that time. The group seeks to devalue differences in the sexes, such as motherhood, and re-define some things like aggression to always be bad (so we get ‘pro-active’ solutions instead).

Anyway, with so much anecdotal evidence suggesting that depression and drug use are caused by abortion, we can easily conclude that the studies that indicate such never happens are lying.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Well, ad hominem is a serious charge. Do you have any evidence here that anyone has attacked your character and not your argument?
Perhaps you are afraid that your response to the above question will in fact lower your credibility?

Wait for it…

If you won’t want to answer the question, fine. No need to throw a rhetorical temper tantrum.

I’m just trying to find out what is the “True centrist position” on killing the innocent. I believe there is no “centrist” position on killing the innocent - I doubt any centrist would be for killing the innocent. There are two sides: kill all innocents or kill no innocents. Dehumanize all or dehumanize none. Should we kill only SOME of the innocent? Should we dehumanize SOME? That’s the only compromise between the two positions, and it is horrible.

What could be the point of this post?

Again, you’re welcome to Dodge the question. I’m sure you’ll just rail against me and hate me for believing that nobody should be dehumanized.

And to remind you: I’m not talking about the “negative health consequences for the mother” you keep bringing up. I don’t use that as a measuring stick of the morality/immorality of abortion. Must be some red-herring.

Now, this thread was originally about the science of health effects of the mother, if you are not discussing these, then you are off topic.

I will repeat myself, you are all arguing from the illogical point of view that “because abortion is immoral it must cause health problems for the mother.”

It could be that the opposition to the scientific evidence stems from frustration that a useful tool for preventing women from getting abortions is being called into question. However no one has made any such claim. I can only conclude therefore that the amoral (not immoral) scientific conclusion is somehow perceived by you as making a statement about the procedure’s morality. It is not.

 

[vz71]

Well, ad hominem is a serious charge. Do you have any evidence here that anyone has attacked your character and not your argument?
Perhaps you are afraid that your response to the above question will in fact lower your credibility?

I will repeat myself, you are all arguing from the illogical point of view that “because abortion is immoral it must cause health problems for the mother.”

Am I the only one here confused by this exchange?

I see quotes, but do not see where that particular dialogue was ever brought forth.

 

[estesbob]

Am I the only one here confused by this exchange?

I see quotes, but do not see where that particular dialogue was ever brought forth.

One often sees such mental gymnastics from those who claim to be pro-life but defend the pro-abortion position. We most often see this around election time when “pro-life” Catholics happily go off to the polls to empower pro-abortion politicians

 

[BobCatholic]

Now, this thread was originally about the science of health effects of the mother, if you are not discussing these, then you are off topic.

ok, so you choose to Dodge. Can you Chevy next time?

I will repeat myself, you are all arguing from the illogical point of view that “because abortion is immoral it must cause health problems for the mother.”

I’m not making that argument so you’re wrong.

And I’m on topic. The Science is ignored by pro-abortion types.

Science says that unborn children are human beings. Pro-aborts say ‘no’ because their idiology (spelling intentional) trumps science and reason.

Science says that unborn children are different people from their mothers. Pro-aborts keep claiming that the unborn child is a body part of the mother.

Science and pro-aborts don’t play nice together.

 

[BobCatholic]

Centrist appaently believes that a woman could abort her child and bear it too! I come down on the side of life, whether or not he thinks of me as extreme. Rob

Ah, so he does dehumanize the unborn instead of listening to what science says.

Interesting.

So since he won’t listen to science, why does he bother arguing from a scientific point of view?

He truly is not a centrist. A real centrist doesn’t dehumanize anyone.

 

[Man]

ok, so you choose to Dodge. Can you Chevy next time?

I’m not making that argument so you’re wrong.

And I’m on topic. The Science is ignored by pro-abortion types.

Science says that unborn children are human beings. Pro-aborts say ‘no’ because their idiology (spelling intentional) trumps science and reason.

Science says that unborn children are different people from their mothers. Pro-aborts keep claiming that the unborn child is a body part of the mother.

Science and pro-aborts don’t play nice together.

I posted this elsewhere, but thought I should use it here to, to clarify the actual science, and why pro-life (and most pro-choice people actually, who consider abortion ‘justifiable’ homicide) actually use science, even when pro-aborts will call it ideology.

To someone claiming they have a better moment for the beginning of life other than conception:

Does your ‘most valid’ position ‘just happen to’ agree with you position on abortion, and at the same time appear to make our human understanding of biology lessened, especially by adding a stage ‘zygote’ in which a human life does not exist, though there is no sperm or egg?

Does ‘the Razor’ seem to indicate that you are unnecessarily complicating the issue?

If so, we need to establish is the relationship is causal or not.