How to refute Pro-Choice statements

  • Thread starter Thread starter RayDove12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We had some beautiful tiger lilies!

I like my irises. They’re pretty for about two weeks in March… my husband hates them, because he says they’re ugly the other 50 weeks out of the year. 😛

We lost some awesome fruit trees in a drought, and have had trouble getting the orchard reestablished. This is our first good year in, like, almost ten years… we’re looking forward to the summer/fall!
 
I was going to post a link, but, some might be offended.

If any reader has a slightly off kilter sense of humor, go find a video of the song “Reproduction” from the movie “Grease 2”. This thread made that song play in my head.
 
nightshade said:
The same logic applies to a fetus in the womb. It’s still a person and should have protections and rights as such.
Click to expand...
A bald eagle has protection, a bald eagle does not have rights. Rights only apply to persons.
 
Sadly, we have about 2 generations of people who could not make the distinction between rights and protections.
 
Since the beginning of time everyone knew that when a woman was pregnant she was having a baby.
Now we have a man on the moon, nuclear medicine, sky scrapers, and we can’t figure out that a pregnant woman is having a baby?
 
A book that really helped me years ago was Randy Alcorn’s “Pro life Answers to pro Choice arguments.”
It is excellent and has been expanded and updated for today.
There is also an appendix in back which has 50 ways to help Mothers in Crisis pregnancies and their unborn babies.
 
While I read these sorts of statements from a segment of the pro life crowd, I have yet to meet one person who
PennyinCanada said:
can’t figure out that a pregnant woman is having a baby
Click to expand...
The difference is that some people believe that before viability, the fetus does not have the same rights as a born person.

It makes for far more fruitful discussion when one attempts to at least clarify their opponents’ positions(s).
 
TheLittleLady said:
While I read these sorts of statements from a segment of the pro life crowd, I have yet to meet one person who
40.png
PennyinCanada:
can’t figure out that a pregnant woman is having a baby
Click to expand...
The difference is that some people believe that before viability, the fetus does not have the same rights as a born person.

It makes for far more fruitful discussion when one attempts to at least clarify their opponents’ positions(s).
Click to expand...
Many prochoicers have that stance but there are still quite a few who do not accept the scientific evidence the unborn child early in development is a human, that it is no different from a growth like a tumor.

Many other prochoicers I’ve encountered do believe the evidence but they are libertarian and don’t believe in government regulation of abortion.
 
As deeply ingrained as most are when it comes to the issue of abortion, I would say your prayers would be better than any statements you could make.
I pray for all, including the mothers, the fathers, the babies, and everyone else involved.
May understanding, forgiveness, and love prevail! 🙏🙏🙏
 
This line of thinking is “not well”, or “insanus” in Latin.
It is detached from reality. The person proposing this fails to recognize that he/she objectively is the continuous development of that newly fertilized nascent human being, and that newly created stage of human being is in-corporated with the human being they are now.

If that was not the case, the current human being would not exist.

The argument is tragically ignorant. It really is tragic because this loss of reason is perpetuating the killing of small human beings.
Sin darkens the intellect.
[1849] Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience
Click to expand...
[1865] Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top