The pro-life common sense clincher

[bpuharic]

*You say you’re prolife? Where? I certainly see no signs of it. I see LOTS of obsession over women and sex. I see NO sign of being prolife *

Obviously you haven’t bothered to read the nearly 1,000 posts that we have placed here.

so would you mind telling me how you know what you’re talking about?

Or are you going to continue evading questions?

*I see you haven’t bothered to read what I wrote. You keep asking questions that reveal circular reasoning. It seems you’re right, about abortion and that makes you right. And abortion is the only thing prolifers care about. Because it’s about sex and women. Infant mortality? That’s elite, powerful men, healthcare, etc. So you ignore it.

So why are you evading the issue?*

 

[CelticMary]

‘Every age designates a category of persons to be less than human in order to deny them rights, and in our age it is the turn of the unborn baby to be denied personhood in law. We will come to our senses someday, and future generations will think of pro-choice politicians in the same way as we now think of pro-slavery politicians’

 

[auzziesoceroo]

you can download a talk by peter kreeft called ‘pro-life philosphy’ from itunes. it is an absolute clincher and does not give pro-choicers any room to manuever. After hearing this talk, you will know that the only way a pro-choicer can justify abortion is to say that ‘yes, unborn babies a people but they dont have rights, therefore, we can kill them’

the talk is about 1hr long but it he uses dumbfoundingly simple logic. The best part is he uses philosophy, meaning his arguments do not stem from any religious perspective or background

 

[adriancombe]

There is nothing “brilliant” about it. The problem is that those in the pro-life position that cannot see the reasonable position of the pro-choice position is due to the fact that they do not undertand the distinction between a moral issue and a legal issue.

The main rationale for the pro-choice position is that it is a legal position—not a moral one.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here. As Augustine correctly stated, an unjust law is no law at all. So the ‘legal’ rationale is not valid.

Or, if that is too abstract, the fact that the elected leader of Germany decreed the killing of ‘undesirables’ (6 million Jews and 5 million others) does not mean it was legal. It was an unjust law - and therefore no law at all.

 

[Gigmaster]

That tells me something…mainly that you are making this up as you go along. I know several dozen women who have had abortions, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has regrets, or bad feelings about it. They have staff counselers at all the clinics to help women deal with the depression, and guilt that THEY ALL FEEL afterwards. I regularly counsel women who have had abortions.

And clinics do not use ‘volunteer guards’. There is no such thing. Granted, I have not lived in every state in the US, but I have lived in 5 of them, and every single one of them requires Security Personnel to either be working for a licensed, bonded Security Company, or the the Facility itself has to be licensed and each person bonded for Security, which (since 9-11) involves extensive background checks, drug-testing, training, and approval from the facilities Insurance Carrier (yes, I am a Doctor, and I work in a clinic).

I’ve been a volunteer guard at abortion clinics and I’ve helped women get abortions. I’ve never seen ONE regret her choice, nor does the data support your contention. Again, you have platitudes. You have no evidence.

 

[adriancombe]

Prove it.

bpuharic is right in this one. It was covered at the Dept of Defense Health Conference in January. There are worse systems than the U.S. but none that spend so much to so little positive result. Worse yet, within the U.S., the areas with the highest costs are substantially worse in terms of medical outcomes than the ones with costs closer to average. In other words, past a certain tipping point, the more you spend, the less ROI you get.

See here:
dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

 

[bpuharic]

‘Every age designates a category of persons to be less than human in order to deny them rights, and in our age it is the turn of the unborn baby to be denied personhood in law. We will come to our senses someday, and future generations will think of pro-choice politicians in the same way as we now think of pro-slavery politicians’

Interesting comment for 2 reasons. First, regarding slavery, no slaves lived inside the bodies of their masters. In addition, the 2 largest prolife churches in the US, the S. Baptist and Catholic, were vehemently proslavery. Another inconsistency in the prolife philosophy, riddled as it is.

 

[bpuharic]

That tells me something…mainly that you are making this up as you go along. I know several dozen women who have had abortions, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has regrets, or bad feelings about it. They have staff counselers at all the clinics to help women deal with the depression, and guilt that THEY ALL FEEL afterwards. I regularly counsel women who have had abortions.

*So you have your experience; I have mine. Which is why these are useless. The real question is statistics. And the stats do not support the contention women suffer from abortion. *

And clinics do not use ‘volunteer guards’. There is no such thing.

Really? how do you know this? Proof?

Granted, I have not lived in every state in the US, but I have lived in 5 of them, and every single one of them requires Security Personnel to either be working for a licensed, bonded Security Company, or the the Facility itself has to be licensed and each person bonded for Security, which (since 9-11) involves extensive background checks, drug-testing, training, and approval from the facilities Insurance Carrier (yes, I am a Doctor, and I work in a clinic).

Uh, no. I stood watch at the doorway of the Allentown Women’s Center shortly after prolife terrorists started murdering clinic personnel across the country a few years ago. You’re welcome to you ignorance, but you simply have no idea of the facts.

 

[bpuharic]

Not sure what point you are trying to make here. As Augustine correctly stated, an unjust law is no law at all. So the ‘legal’ rationale is not valid.

Or, if that is too abstract, the fact that the elected leader of Germany decreed the killing of ‘undesirables’ (6 million Jews and 5 million others) does not mean it was legal. It was an unjust law - and therefore no law at all.

I refer you to the document "Dabru Emet’, written by 200 rabbis and Jewish scholars. There they state that ‘although Christianity did not CAUSE the holocaust, without the existence of Christian antisemitism, the holocaust could never have happened.’ For Christians to trivialize the holocaust in this manner is offensive to many Jews. Most sophisticated prolifers don’t use this argument for this reason.