Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Abortion good

Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 3:25:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Abortion rights activists have gained ground over anti-abortionists lately as people have learned that anti-abortion activists like to attack abortion clinics, ironically killing life.

Abortion is the best way to give women choice over reproduction, as contraception and plan B pills do not exist. Any anti-abortion "person" claiming that they do is a liar.

Abortion is not morally problematic, because if you don't allow aborting fetal tissue, then you also shouldn't allow people to kill non-human animals with more nerve cells than a piece of fetal tissue.

"But fetal tissue can potentially grow into a human being!" You might say. You see, that would mean egg cells and sperm cells also should not be killed. This shows that the line between alive and not alive is a thin grey line, which somehow means that we can arbitrarily set it anywhere.

Being forced to be pregnant is just like being forced to provide kidney dialysis to a otherwise dying person with your own body, because again contraception and plan B pills do not exist.
:) nac
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 6:00:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 3:25:35 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Abortion rights activists have gained ground over anti-abortionists lately as people have learned that anti-abortion activists like to attack abortion clinics, ironically killing life.

Not true. It actually seems to be a very rare, and by a very small minority of pro life people.

Abortion is the best way to give women choice over reproduction, as contraception and plan B pills do not exist. Any anti-abortion "person" claiming that they do is a liar.

Plan b pills and contraception clearly exist.

Abortion is not morally problematic, because if you don't allow aborting fetal tissue, then you also shouldn't allow people to kill non-human animals with more nerve cells than a piece of fetal tissue.

So what's your argument that it's okay to kill animals whenever you feel like?

"But fetal tissue can potentially grow into a human being!" You might say. You see, that would mean egg cells and sperm cells also should not be killed. This shows that the line between alive and not alive is a thin grey line, which somehow means that we can arbitrarily set it anywhere.

To compare eggs or sperm to a fetus is absurd. There is clearly a difference between a little baby kicking inside a woman's body and some cells without a brain swimming around.

Being forced to be pregnant is just like being forced to provide kidney dialysis to a otherwise dying person with your own body, because again contraception and plan B
pills do not exist.

Those things do exist, and the comparison makes no sense. How is being forced to save a life and not being allowed to kill a person, comparable?
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 1:10:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 6:00:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:25:35 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Abortion rights activists have gained ground over anti-abortionists lately as people have learned that anti-abortion activists like to attack abortion clinics, ironically killing life.

Not true. It actually seems to be a very rare, and by a very small minority of pro life people.

Abortion is the best way to give women choice over reproduction, as contraception and plan B pills do not exist. Any anti-abortion "person" claiming that they do is a liar.

Plan b pills and contraception clearly exist.

Abortion is not morally problematic, because if you don't allow aborting fetal tissue, then you also shouldn't allow people to kill non-human animals with more nerve cells than a piece of fetal tissue.

So what's your argument that it's okay to kill animals whenever you feel like?

"But fetal tissue can potentially grow into a human being!" You might say. You see, that would mean egg cells and sperm cells also should not be killed. This shows that the line between alive and not alive is a thin grey line, which somehow means that we can arbitrarily set it anywhere.

To compare eggs or sperm to a fetus is absurd. There is clearly a difference between a little baby kicking inside a woman's body and some cells without a brain swimming around.

Being forced to be pregnant is just like being forced to provide kidney dialysis to a otherwise dying person with your own body, because again contraception and plan B
pills do not exist.

Those things do exist, and the comparison makes no sense. How is being forced to save a life and not being allowed to kill a person, comparable?

OP is being sarcastic.
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 4:26:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 6:00:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:25:35 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Abortion rights activists have gained ground over anti-abortionists lately as people have learned that anti-abortion activists like to attack abortion clinics, ironically killing life.

Not true. It actually seems to be a very rare, and by a very small minority of pro life people.

Abortion is the best way to give women choice over reproduction, as contraception and plan B pills do not exist. Any anti-abortion "person" claiming that they do is a liar.

Plan b pills and contraception clearly exist.

Abortion is not morally problematic, because if you don't allow aborting fetal tissue, then you also shouldn't allow people to kill non-human animals with more nerve cells than a piece of fetal tissue.

So what's your argument that it's okay to kill animals whenever you feel like?

"But fetal tissue can potentially grow into a human being!" You might say. You see, that would mean egg cells and sperm cells also should not be killed. This shows that the line between alive and not alive is a thin grey line, which somehow means that we can arbitrarily set it anywhere.

To compare eggs or sperm to a fetus is absurd. There is clearly a difference between a little baby kicking inside a woman's body and some cells without a brain swimming around.

Being forced to be pregnant is just like being forced to provide kidney dialysis to a otherwise dying person with your own body, because again contraception and plan B
pills do not exist.

Those things do exist, and the comparison makes no sense. How is being forced to save a life and not being allowed to kill a person, comparable?

Numerous abortion rights activists and abortion providers have been killed or threatened with violent activity over the past few years; if that's not representative of the anti-choice movement, then what is?
:) nac
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 4:27:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 3:25:35 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Abortion rights activists have gained ground over anti-abortionists lately as people have learned that anti-abortion activists like to attack abortion clinics, ironically killing life.

Abortion is the best way to give women choice over reproduction, as contraception and plan B pills do not exist. Any anti-abortion "person" claiming that they do is a liar.

Abortion is not morally problematic, because if you don't allow aborting fetal tissue, then you also shouldn't allow people to kill non-human animals with more nerve cells than a piece of fetal tissue.

"But fetal tissue can potentially grow into a human being!" You might say. You see, that would mean egg cells and sperm cells also should not be killed. This shows that the line between alive and not alive is a thin grey line, which somehow means that we can arbitrarily set it anywhere.

Being forced to be pregnant is just like being forced to provide kidney dialysis to a otherwise dying person with your own body, because again contraception and plan B pills do not exist.

You can't judge all pro life people for the actions of a few. Would you judge all Muslims for the Paris attacks? Many pro life people were involved in abortion, before seeing the light. Bernard Nathanson for example was an abortion doctor who turned pro life. Fetuses are people who can directly grow into fully formed babies. Sperm and eggs can not directly grow into babies.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 11:24:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2015 4:26:32 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 6:00:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:25:35 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Abortion rights activists have gained ground over anti-abortionists lately as people have learned that anti-abortion activists like to attack abortion clinics, ironically killing life.

Not true. It actually seems to be a very rare, and by a very small minority of pro life people.

Abortion is the best way to give women choice over reproduction, as contraception and plan B pills do not exist. Any anti-abortion "person" claiming that they do is a liar.

Plan b pills and contraception clearly exist.

Abortion is not morally problematic, because if you don't allow aborting fetal tissue, then you also shouldn't allow people to kill non-human animals with more nerve cells than a piece of fetal tissue.

So what's your argument that it's okay to kill animals whenever you feel like?

"But fetal tissue can potentially grow into a human being!" You might say. You see, that would mean egg cells and sperm cells also should not be killed. This shows that the line between alive and not alive is a thin grey line, which somehow means that we can arbitrarily set it anywhere.

To compare eggs or sperm to a fetus is absurd. There is clearly a difference between a little baby kicking inside a woman's body and some cells without a brain swimming around.

Being forced to be pregnant is just like being forced to provide kidney dialysis to a otherwise dying person with your own body, because again contraception and plan B
pills do not exist.

Those things do exist, and the comparison makes no sense. How is being forced to save a life and not being allowed to kill a person, comparable?

Numerous abortion rights activists and abortion providers have been killed or threatened with violent activity over the past few years; if that's not representative of the anti-choice movement, then what is?

I'm representative of the movement as a whole
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 12:05:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 6:00:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
Yeah, I didn't see it right away, but I eventually got that the OP was being sarcastic. It wasn't that clear though, and given the kinds of silly opening posts I see on this site, I would not be surprised if such an OP were actually serious.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 12:08:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In seriousness though, I resent the arguments pro-choicers makes as they are are not logically good or even founded on good rhetorical strategy. I hear, "a woman has a right to her own body" way more times than should be.

Obviously the best argument is the actual "choice" argument, and the neglect of that argument by their side is criminal.
Wtnjetro
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 10:12:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 3:25:35 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Abortion rights activists have gained ground over anti-abortionists lately as people have learned that anti-abortion activists like to attack abortion clinics, ironically killing life.

Abortion is the best way to give women choice over reproduction, as contraception and plan B pills do not exist. Any anti-abortion "person" claiming that they do is a liar.

Abortion is not morally problematic, because if you don't allow aborting fetal tissue, then you also shouldn't allow people to kill non-human animals with more nerve cells than a piece of fetal tissue.

"But fetal tissue can potentially grow into a human being!" You might say. You see, that would mean egg cells and sperm cells also should not be killed. This shows that the line between alive and not alive is a thin grey line, which somehow means that we can arbitrarily set it anywhere.

Being forced to be pregnant is just like being forced to provide kidney dialysis to a otherwise dying person with your own body, because again contraception and plan B pills do not exist.

This original post is soooo wrong on so many levels. First, what is meant by "contraception and plan B pills do not exist". it's been awhile since I bought a condom, but can't you still buy them? They're not expensive are they? I don't think the condom business has shut down has it? And what's the best form of contraception? Not engaging in sex to begin with.

Not allowing aborting fetal tissue? The issue is about aborting an unborn human. Let's at least get the terminology straight.

The fetus WILL grow into a human being. The egg and sperm will not. That's the difference. The fetus is an unborn human and an egg and sperm are not. Again, the question goes to "What exactly is the fetus?"

Generally speaking, nobody is forced to be pregnant. They take actions (man and woman) to become parents and be pregnant. Is nobody should be forced to be pregnant, then isn't it logical that nobody should be forced to be a parent? In that case, let anybody kill their 1 or 2 year olds if they want. Again, the question is "What is the fetus?" If it's an unborn human then they at least have enough rights to not be killed.
Author of the book The Vast Wastelands of Unbelief published by Tate Publishing, frequent author of articles at www.lutheranscience.org
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 12:06:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2015 10:12:57 PM, Wtnjetro wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:25:35 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Abortion rights activists have gained ground over anti-abortionists lately as people have learned that anti-abortion activists like to attack abortion clinics, ironically killing life.

Abortion is the best way to give women choice over reproduction, as contraception and plan B pills do not exist. Any anti-abortion "person" claiming that they do is a liar.

Abortion is not morally problematic, because if you don't allow aborting fetal tissue, then you also shouldn't allow people to kill non-human animals with more nerve cells than a piece of fetal tissue.

"But fetal tissue can potentially grow into a human being!" You might say. You see, that would mean egg cells and sperm cells also should not be killed. This shows that the line between alive and not alive is a thin grey line, which somehow means that we can arbitrarily set it anywhere.

Being forced to be pregnant is just like being forced to provide kidney dialysis to a otherwise dying person with your own body, because again contraception and plan B pills do not exist.

This original post is soooo wrong on so many levels. First, what is meant by "contraception and plan B pills do not exist". it's been awhile since I bought a condom, but can't you still buy them? They're not expensive are they? I don't think the condom business has shut down has it? And what's the best form of contraception? Not engaging in sex to begin with.

Not allowing aborting fetal tissue? The issue is about aborting an unborn human. Let's at least get the terminology straight.

The fetus WILL grow into a human being. The egg and sperm will not. That's the difference. The fetus is an unborn human and an egg and sperm are not. Again, the question goes to "What exactly is the fetus?"

Generally speaking, nobody is forced to be pregnant. They take actions (man and woman) to become parents and be pregnant. Is nobody should be forced to be pregnant, then isn't it logical that nobody should be forced to be a parent? In that case, let anybody kill their 1 or 2 year olds if they want. Again, the question is "What is the fetus?" If it's an unborn human then they at least have enough rights to not be killed.

Abortion is good! Why are you comparing abortion rights with murder? AD HOMINIM
:) nac