If A Person Is Pro-Life.....

[100%]

If you guys need a fix go around the corner.

Before the birth of my son, i was sure if in the eccolog film it showed that he was handicapped etc, wwe agreed on an abortion.
When we did the actual examination, i really to this day do not know what i would do.
He is walking now and learning faster than i can think.

[JPaul]

If you guys need a fix go around the corner.

Before the birth of my son, i was sure if in the eccolog film it showed that he was handicapped etc, wwe agreed on an abortion.
When we did the actual examination, i really to this day do not know what i would do.
He is walking now and learning faster than i can think.

I'm taking from that you are happy not to have chosen to kill your unborn child.

Maybe I've picked you up wrong tho'.

[Busyman™]

and believes a human comes into being at the moment of conception then the only reasonable circumstance for an abortion would be to save the mother's life.

To say that there are other extenuating circumstances is bunkum.

Rape? So you, Joe Pro-Lifer, condone the killing of a child due to an unwanted participant of the mother?

Incest? So kill the child because of possible birth defects or embarrassment?

Birth defects? See above. So kill the child because it will be inconvenient to manage?

If you have "extenuating" circumstances to your pro-life beliefs besides saving the mother, you are full of shit.

Why do you believe "saving the mother" to be a reason/the only reason mitigating the pro-life mindset?

'Cause it still keeps with pro-life.

[j2k4]

Why do you believe "saving the mother" to be a reason/the only reason mitigating the pro-life mindset?

'Cause it still keeps with pro-life.

But not Pro new-life, which is the issue.

Apples and oranges.

Your supposition avoids any moral connotation whatsoever by defaulting to a formulaic solution:

If Mom's health is at risk, abortion is a guilt-free option.

If you are attempting to hook a sucker with a logical argument, you have to play by the rules.

[Busyman™]

'Cause it still keeps with pro-life.

But not Pro new-life, which is the issue.

Apples and oranges.

Your supposition avoids any moral connotation whatsoever by defaulting to a formulaic solution:

If Mom's health is at risk, abortion is a guilt-free option.

If you are attempting to hook a sucker with a logical argument, you have to play by the rules.

Eh? No you made pro new-life the issue.

You made this "hook" up. I am playing by the rules. Saving the mother's life is considered acceptable.

I'd love to get your take on it though. Do you consider abortion wrong under any and all circumstances, no exceptions?

Also I said nothing of the mom's health. I said her life (and not livelihood either). Health is to broad.

Nice try though, spindoctor.

[j2k4]

But not Pro new-life, which is the issue.

Apples and oranges.

Your supposition avoids any moral connotation whatsoever by defaulting to a formulaic solution:

If Mom's health is at risk, abortion is a guilt-free option.

If you are attempting to hook a sucker with a logical argument, you have to play by the rules.

Eh? No you made pro new-life the issue.

You made this "hook" up. I am playing by the rules. Saving the mother's life is considered acceptable.

I'd love to get your take on it though. Do you consider abortion wrong under any and all circumstances, no exceptions?

Also I said nothing of the mom's health. I said her life (and not livelihood either). Health is to broad.

Nice try though, spindoctor.

No spin, home-boy.

Here's how it works:

The term Pro-life, as generally used, entertains the few exceptions you have noted, but that is not how you presented it; you were attempting to use it in the logical, theoretical sense so as to create a hook for argument-don't pretend you intended otherwise, it won't wash.

As a practitioner of the Pro-life point-of view, I submit to you that for someone such as myself (and all others who truly grasp the issue) to countenance abortion even under such limited circumstances is a morally rending concession to that circumstance.

It is the flaw in our stance when viewed through the lens of logic, but it is our emotional weakness which demands it.

Reason counters, nonetheless, with it's imperative to limit these circumstances, not broaden them.

You feel, however, that this concession precludes or short-circuits any further argument against abortion.

You are quite simply wrong in this.

Certain members here have alluded to the efficacy of aborting prospectively defective pregnancies.

While supporting and nurturing such infants/children/adults is amongst the most difficult things a human can do, as one who spent several years doing it, I can report it is also amongst the most rewarding.

I guess my stance is that the worship and respect of human life is our ultimate duty, and to grant exceptions (even such as we've noted) weakens us and demonstrates our imperfection.

Many people, on the other hand, live their lives so as to avoid such responsibilty or guilt, at any moral cost, believing they deserve better.

To quote Mr. Eastwood's script, "sometimes deserve's got nothing to do with it".

Life is life; if you're going to live it to the fullest, you've got to make room for everyone.

This concludes my participation in this thread.

[Busyman™]

Eh? No you made pro new-life the issue.

You made this "hook" up. I am playing by the rules. Saving the mother's life is considered acceptable.

I'd love to get your take on it though. Do you consider abortion wrong under any and all circumstances, no exceptions?

Also I said nothing of the mom's health. I said her life (and not livelihood either). Health is to broad.

Nice try though, spindoctor.

No spin, home-boy.

Here's how it works:

The term Pro-life, as generally used, entertains the few exceptions you have noted, but that is not how you presented it; you were attempting to use it in the logical, theoretical sense so as to create a hook for argument-don't pretend you intended otherwise, it won't wash.

As a practitioner of the Pro-life point-of view, I submit to you that for someone such as myself (and all others who truly grasp the issue) to countenance abortion even under such limited circumstances is a morally rending concession to that circumstance.

It is the flaw in our stance when viewed through the lens of logic, but it is our emotional weakness which demands it.

Reason counters, nonetheless, with it's imperative to limit these circumstances, not broaden them.

You feel, however, that this concession precludes or short-circuits any further argument against abortion.

You are quite simply wrong in this.

Certain members here have alluded to the efficacy of aborting prospectively defective pregnancies.

While supporting and nurturing such infants/children/adults is amongst the most difficult things a human can do, as one who spent several years doing it, I can report it is also amongst the most rewarding.

I guess my stance is that the worship and respect of human life is our ultimate duty, and to grant exceptions (even such as we've noted) weakens us and demonstrates our imperfection.

Many people, on the other hand, live their lives so as to avoid such responsibilty or guilt, at any moral cost, believing they deserve better.

To quote Mr. Eastwood's script, "sometimes deserve's got nothing to do with it".

Life is life; if you're going to live it to the fullest, you've got to make room for everyone.

This concludes my participation in this thread.

I bet it does.

What's with the home-boy shit?

So do you consider abortion wrong under any and all circumstances, no exceptions?

Through all your round about speak you missed the a simple yes or no answer. I take it by your "emotional weakness which demands it" that the answer is NO.

You consider abortion ok under certain circumstances. You consider certain choices in killing a child ok while eschewing others and this goes beyond the mother's life being saved.

I gotcha.

Btw, I presented in a logical sense since the pro-life movement presents it in the same way. You say a child is a child at the moment of conception.. Kaput. End of story.

You use this as the rationale against abortion by saying they are killing a child. Then there are folks who put their emotional tag on it (like the fella from vid's post) to make abortion okay. Their "emotional weakness" "demands it".

Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

[JPaul]

You really need to learn what the word extenuate means before using it.

Oh and your persistent non sequiturs make my logic gland ache.

If someone accepts that there may be extenuating circumstances for an action, it does not logically follow that they then think it is right.

I have noted this trend in your posts, everything must have a yes or no answer. When you grow up you will see that people can also see shades of gray. That they can see how other people may feel that, under certain circumstances, an action can be justified. That does not mean one agrees, merely that one understands the other person's position. Or that one accepts that in those circumstances the action is ... oh never mind.

[Busyman™]

To any pro-lifer, don't fanny about with what is justifiable.

On one hand killing a child is wrong. On the next, it's ok if the mom was raped.

In both cases you kill a child.

Bill Napoli is clearly a hypocrite. The female in question has no more right to an abortion than a female that simply says they are not ready to take care of a child....since it's about not killing a child and all.

[MCHeshPants420]

I have noted this trend in your posts, everything must have a yes or no answer.

I think of it as binary arguing, I look at it as the fatal flaw in trying to argue anything in a completely logical way.