P
Pro-Life_Teen
Guest
Is anyone on this forum truly ‘pro-choice’? (cough pro-murder cough)
And if so, why? Anyone mind sharing their views?
And if so, why? Anyone mind sharing their views?
- Status
T
Tlaloc
Guest
T
Tlaloc
Guest
BTW if you really want to discuss it you might want to leave out the “(cough pro-murder cough)” part.
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
Pro-choice= pro-murder=pro-death=pro-genocide=pro-cruelty=pro-barberism
:banghead:
:banghead:
T
Tlaloc
Guest
A textbook example of how not to start a conversation, are you paying attention, PLT?Pro-choice= pro-murder=pro-death=pro-genocide=pro-cruelty=pro-barberism
C
cove
Guest
After reading your opening post on your thread I wanted to share this with you.
Classes of Human Life
- Is it ever right to designate different classes of humans and grant them different sets of rights? No.
- Does the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights allow different human rights of different classes of human beings? No. It explicitly states all human beings (with no exceptions) are entitled to full human rights.
- Does the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights allow different human rights based on age? No. It does not specify different rights by age. All living human beings are entitled full human rights.
How can you truly justify your case against human life and personhood? The human being in the womb is a unique individual with their own DNA. They are not an extention of the woman’s body. If this were true then, say for example, the human in the womb would always have the same blood type as the woman. But, they do not always (my son was born with type A+ I have O+). This is just one example.
I am sorry but your argument only makes me wonder about your personal beliefs concerning rights for all humans. If we keep denying human rights to the most vulnerable and innocent humans among us, who will be next? The mentally challenged? The infirmed? The physically challenged? All human life is precious.
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
Truth hurts
J
Jesusismyhomie
Guest
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_30_121.gif
Why would there be pro-abortionists here?. This is a Catholic site not an athiest site. If there are some here I will pray for them.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_10.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_34.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/982v.gif
Why would there be pro-abortionists here?. This is a Catholic site not an athiest site. If there are some here I will pray for them.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_10.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_34.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/982v.gif
J
juliegh23
Guest
WOW!! This is a very persuasive argument. I read it with my mouth wide open. While I am Pro-Life, I have never heard this argument made and I am truely appreciative for having read it. Thank you.
C
chevalier
Guest
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we are missing one basic fact:
Any and all argument for abortion serves the purpose of abortion being legal (or legalised) and is derived from the desire to have abortion legalised. In short, the postulate to legalise abortion is not derived from the arguments, but the arguments come from the postulate.
Whatever arguments they bring up, they will still want abortion legal if the arguments fail. They will stick to their stance without any argument for it until they find a new one. And they will use arguments already refuted by prolifers in their disputes with new prolifers. If you prove their argument wrong, they won’t cease using it.
Why? I can give you this answer. Because it’s all motivated by the desire to have abortion legal and be allowed to perform it.
Truth doesn’t count, rights don’t count, rational legislation and justice in law don’t count, either.
I’ve been in many such discussions on the internet, writing even twenty page long comments on pro-abortion verdicts or proving that in the light of Sen. Kerry’s own words, he believes it’s a sin to vote for him (after all, he personally believes whatever the Church says in the matter). It’s daily bread for me. I recognise the diatribes instantly and I can guess their mind before they make it up as to what to say. That’s because I know all those diatribes by heart along with ways of refuting them and I can recall them with no error even when I’m so tipsy that I can’t hit the right keys without watching my fingers. Even if you make them admit that it violates the right to life (not like they are bent on disproving this one), even if you make them admit it’s murder, they still say it should be legal. They don’t want to stand in the truth. So what point debating? I don’t know, perhaps I do it for its own sake. Whatever you say in defence of life will perhaps strengthen the faith of another prolifer or move the heart of a pro-abortionist. They don’t want to stand in the truth. Their arguments rest on lie. Even the name “pro-choice” is a purposeful misnomer. Whose choice? The most concerned individual, the child, is actually the one being denied all choice.
And how exactly is opting for murder being legal different from taking part in the murder? If it’s so right and proper, why do you not do it? Oh, so perhaps it isn’t. Then why do you say it should be legal? jawdropped pro-choicer What? Personal choice? Choice whether to kill another being or not? jawdropped pro-choicer Respond! stuttering pro-choicer saying something close to a shy yes And how can you live with it? silent pro-choicer
No matter how it goes, no matter what is being said, in the very end you will always end up banging your head on the wall of convenience.
Because it’s convenience what drives it.
The most sorry thing is how they say that the decision should be made with due deliberation and due concern. What’s there to consider and why to deliberate if it’s so clear that it’s morally right?
On the part of some pro-lifers, it’s sad how they make exception for rape or incest. They pull the homicide argument on anything done apart from these two reasons, but they have no problem inflicting death penalty on an innocent for his father’s crime. (Just a little disclaimer: I’m totally in favour of non-abortifacient artificial contraception in case of rape).
Sorry for ranting…
Any and all argument for abortion serves the purpose of abortion being legal (or legalised) and is derived from the desire to have abortion legalised. In short, the postulate to legalise abortion is not derived from the arguments, but the arguments come from the postulate.
Whatever arguments they bring up, they will still want abortion legal if the arguments fail. They will stick to their stance without any argument for it until they find a new one. And they will use arguments already refuted by prolifers in their disputes with new prolifers. If you prove their argument wrong, they won’t cease using it.
Why? I can give you this answer. Because it’s all motivated by the desire to have abortion legal and be allowed to perform it.
Truth doesn’t count, rights don’t count, rational legislation and justice in law don’t count, either.
I’ve been in many such discussions on the internet, writing even twenty page long comments on pro-abortion verdicts or proving that in the light of Sen. Kerry’s own words, he believes it’s a sin to vote for him (after all, he personally believes whatever the Church says in the matter). It’s daily bread for me. I recognise the diatribes instantly and I can guess their mind before they make it up as to what to say. That’s because I know all those diatribes by heart along with ways of refuting them and I can recall them with no error even when I’m so tipsy that I can’t hit the right keys without watching my fingers. Even if you make them admit that it violates the right to life (not like they are bent on disproving this one), even if you make them admit it’s murder, they still say it should be legal. They don’t want to stand in the truth. So what point debating? I don’t know, perhaps I do it for its own sake. Whatever you say in defence of life will perhaps strengthen the faith of another prolifer or move the heart of a pro-abortionist. They don’t want to stand in the truth. Their arguments rest on lie. Even the name “pro-choice” is a purposeful misnomer. Whose choice? The most concerned individual, the child, is actually the one being denied all choice.
And how exactly is opting for murder being legal different from taking part in the murder? If it’s so right and proper, why do you not do it? Oh, so perhaps it isn’t. Then why do you say it should be legal? jawdropped pro-choicer What? Personal choice? Choice whether to kill another being or not? jawdropped pro-choicer Respond! stuttering pro-choicer saying something close to a shy yes And how can you live with it? silent pro-choicer
No matter how it goes, no matter what is being said, in the very end you will always end up banging your head on the wall of convenience.
Because it’s convenience what drives it.
The most sorry thing is how they say that the decision should be made with due deliberation and due concern. What’s there to consider and why to deliberate if it’s so clear that it’s morally right?
On the part of some pro-lifers, it’s sad how they make exception for rape or incest. They pull the homicide argument on anything done apart from these two reasons, but they have no problem inflicting death penalty on an innocent for his father’s crime. (Just a little disclaimer: I’m totally in favour of non-abortifacient artificial contraception in case of rape).
Sorry for ranting…
T
Tlaloc
Guest
Don’t be ridiculous. Do you let children drive, vote, and go to R or XXX rated movies? You most certainly differentiate between humans and what rights they get according to their age.
Again children are an accepted exception. The UN has never found a country in violation because they don’t let kids vote on issues.
You or your source is mistaken as above.
Not a fact. It depends on your subjective definition of what constitutes human.
I do but a tissue is not an organism, and a human being is. Until a fetus transistions from tissue to organism it is not a human being as I see it.
The DNA argument breaks down as soon as we consider both transplants and chimeras.
Not all tissue in a woman is identical with all other tissue. Her eggs for instance are haploid and not diploid like the rest of her. And yet we consider them part of her.
Yes but is a fetus “human”? Tell you what give me your personal definition of human and I’ll show where it either leads to a consequence you don’t intend or where it is scientifically incorrect.
L
Lisa_N
Guest
Scroll down. Tlaloc is back. He is our resident proabort and homosexual apologist. Trust me, they don’t screen out atheists when you register.
Lisa N
A
Argh
Guest
Very well put…
The Church has very clearly defined what a human is and isnt. So by the Church’s definition, a fertilized egg (a fetus) is human.
Driving and watching movies are not rights.
I believe (correct if wrong) that children are not full citizens until they are 18 in the U.S. and therefore, do not have the right to vote until then.
The DNA makes for a very curious predicament. It is theoritcally possible to “create” a “human” from “scratch” using organic compunds. Incredibly complex, far into the future, but possible and interesting. Also curious is that humans are carrying the partial DNA of various viruses with them (I remember reading this somewhere…the book “Genome”?).
Maybe we should ask ourselves at what point do we cease to be human. Put my brain in a jar, throw my body away and then put my brain in a machine capable of interpreting my brain’s signals to move a mechanical arm, see using some optical device, talk threw a systhesizer, etc. all in the imitation of “The Matrix”. Am I still human? Do I still have a soul? Does “the Major” from “Ghost in the Shell” still have a soul, cause frankly, she’s hot…
This is NOT a free country, this is a Democracy.
A
Argh
Guest
sorry for spelling, I’m an engineer and I’m lazy…
P
puzzleannie
Guest
of course I am pro-choice, we all have the gift of free will, we choose whether to accept God’s revealed Word or deny it, to love Jesus by following His commandments or to reject Him, to know, love and serve God in this world and be happy with Him in the next, or to reject God eternally and choose hell, to accept God’s loving plan for our lives or to make ourselves little god’s writing our own rules and suffer the consequences. Viva la choice.
L
lje
Guest
Ok,
There’s no arguement that will stand with the destruction of life, be it human, plant, tissue, DNA, elderly, etc.
Common people, theologians, scientists, scholars, etc., have spent their entire lives searching, researching, speaking, writing, archiving, meditating, painting, drawing, etc., about religions and about “what it all means”. They all come back to one very simple idea that we all heard in our first Sunday School Classes… “God is Love.”
To derive one step beyond that teaching (which was really all encompassing), God only asks us to simply Love one another and to Love everything. Further, He has made each of us in His Own Image, which is All Loving.
My opinion…
From the above, I’ll never understand how we can construe that it’s OK to destroy anything, much less a fetus.
Once again, repeat after me…
God is Love!
God bless & Have a great day!
There’s no arguement that will stand with the destruction of life, be it human, plant, tissue, DNA, elderly, etc.
Common people, theologians, scientists, scholars, etc., have spent their entire lives searching, researching, speaking, writing, archiving, meditating, painting, drawing, etc., about religions and about “what it all means”. They all come back to one very simple idea that we all heard in our first Sunday School Classes… “God is Love.”
To derive one step beyond that teaching (which was really all encompassing), God only asks us to simply Love one another and to Love everything. Further, He has made each of us in His Own Image, which is All Loving.
My opinion…
From the above, I’ll never understand how we can construe that it’s OK to destroy anything, much less a fetus.
Once again, repeat after me…
God is Love!
God bless & Have a great day!
B
buffalo
Guest
Call it what it really is Lisa. Now defend your position Tialoc.Pro-choice= pro-murder=pro-death=pro-genocide=pro-cruelty=pro-barberism
C
chevalier
Guest
She does call it what it is. Tearing a child limb from limb for mother’s convenience is what else than murder?
T
Tlaloc
Guest
Lisa N:
So we can add atheist to the long list of incorrect things you’ve claimed me to be…
T
Tlaloc
Guest
Lisa N:
So we can add atheist to the long list of incorrect things you’ve claimed me to be…
- Status