each year many unborn babies are deliberately aborted.

[Prestor John]

It is interesting that Evangelicals will often have more compassion for a blob of cells, an unborn life with no concept of self, but once that blob of cells is born it can't eat because the Evangelical politicians condemned the mom as a lazy slob who makes poor decisions and needs to work hard even though she's already working two or more jobs and cut off her support, when the blob becomes older if it's a male they expect it to sign up for involuntary servitude to serve "god and country," and if the blob turns out gay then they have no compassion for it.

Nothing really worth responding to here.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ultimately, abortion reduces suffering. Not only the suffering the individual will experience, but the suffering brought on by a population that is too high. All those fetuses that are aborted means more space, food, and water for the rest of us. Without abortion the population would be so high that over population would be a severely crippling problem, a problem so great that only a plague or massive war could ameliorate the situation. And not too mention that higher population densities make it easier for a disease to spread around.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nothing really worth responding to here.

And why would that be? Is it too uncomfortable to face those facts? The unborn get all sorts of protections that the born do not get. The unborn they try to protect at all costs, but they don't protect the born from signing up for involuntary servitude. The want the unborn to have all manners of legal protections, but they want to deny the born LBGT all the rights they can. The love the unborn, but the hate the born who are poor and will punish children for their parent's crime of not being wealthy enough to sustain a family without public assistance.

 

[Prestor John]

Ultimately, abortion reduces suffering. Not only the suffering the individual will experience, but the suffering brought on by a population that is too high. All those fetuses that are aborted means more space, food, and water for the rest of us. Without abortion the population would be so high that over population would be a severely crippling problem, a problem so great that only a plague or massive war could ameliorate the situation. And not too mention that higher population densities make it easier for a disease to spread around.

This is a disgusting position.

 

[Prestor John]

And why would that be? Is it too uncomfortable to face those facts? The unborn get all sorts of protections that the born do not get. The unborn they try to protect at all costs, but they don't protect the born from signing up for involuntary servitude. The want the unborn to have all manners of legal protections, but they want to deny the born LBGT all the rights they can. The love the unborn, but the hate the born who are poor and will punish children for their parent's crime of not being wealthy enough to sustain a family without public assistance.

It is not worth responding to because it is vacuous and based on nothing but your opinion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My sharing my opinion that the killing of the unborn is evil is not my advocating that anyone be forced to do anything.

Again, you are fake news.

That part didn't suggest to me that you were talking about banning abortion. The part that suggested this was when you said that nobody should have the right - and you did say "right" - to "commit murder"... and you've made it clear throughout this thread that you consider abortion to be murder.

If you misspoke, fair enough, but don't blame others for the impression you created with what you said yourself.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It is not worth responding to because it is vacuous and based on nothing but your opinion.

*snort* as opposed to everything you've posted, obviously.

 

[Willamena]

I understand why you do not understand the heart analogy because it it as analogy that places you in the position of the unborn child.

Do I get to choose my life over my heart's? Because, in choosing my life I choose my heart's life.

Why do you have no concern for the autonomy of the unborn child, who is just as much a person as the mother?

My autonomy is the child's autonomy, there is no possible distinction. Until it is developed enough to be born, my life is the child's life.

You can be pro-life and still not want to force anyone to do anything.

In a general sense, sure. We are all pro-life in that sense. But the pro-life movement is a political movement that contrasts with the pro-choice movement. Their sole aim is to politically enforce anti-abortion laws, just as the aim of pro-choice is to have government guarantee abortion rights, which is the right to choose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Golly you are dense.

My original response to Cacotopia was about his list. Nothing else.

How could you claim I was ignoring anything that was not included in that list?

You critiqued me for not including concerns that were not on his list. That makes no sense.

If you want to talk about the things you mentioned, I am all for that.

But, you would first have to admit that that would be a separate conversation, unrelated from Cacotopia's list and my comment about it.

It hardly matters. You lost so long ago in so many ways it does not matter at all if this one claim of your is correct. And I doubt if it is.

You bore me. Admit that you lost the debate and we can start again. Otherwise it is pointless to continue.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is not worth responding to because it is vacuous and based on nothing but your opinion.

That males have to sign up for the draft is not an opinion (which violates the Constitution prohibition against involuntary servitude). That the Religious Right wants to strip the rights of LBGT is not an opinion. That Republicans punish the poor for being poor is not an opinion. But they love a fetus so much that if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant they'll strip the woman of bodily autonomy to protect a fetus.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is a disgusting position.

No one ever claimed reality is pretty.

 

[Prestor John]

That part didn't suggest to me that you were talking about banning abortion. The part that suggested this was when you said that nobody should have the right - and you did say "right" - to "commit murder"... and you've made it clear throughout this thread that you consider abortion to be murder.

If you misspoke, fair enough, but don't blame others for the impression you created with what you said yourself.

Spoken like a true pro-abortion nut job.

You'll take the outlying case and use it to try and justify the whole.

You'll use cases of rape to try and justify all abortions.

You'll apply an interpretation to one statement I made that clashes with all other statements I have made.

It is true that I believe that abortion is murder. Just as I believe that pre-marital sex is sin.

My sharing my beliefs concerning these things are not calls to force anyone to do anything.

I don't believe that anyone should be able to abort their child because it is inconvenient to them, yet you cannot quote me ever advocating that anyone should be forced to do anything.

Like I said above, I also believe that no one should have sex outside of marriage, are you now going to claim that my sharing this belief is somehow me calling to force people to keep it in their pants until they get hitched?

The sharing of my opinion is suddenly a call for enforcement of my beliefs?

Pull yourself together.

 

[Prestor John]

*snort* as opposed to everything you've posted, obviously.

I doubt very much that you have read my posts.

All of human history, logic and science prove that all people everywhere are the products of pregnancy.

That is not my opinion. That is fact.

 

[Prestor John]

Do I get to choose my life over my heart's? Because, in choosing my life I choose my heart's life.

Just more evidence that you are literally incapable of seeing this issue from the perspective of the unborn child.

I gave the heart analogy after you claimed that aborting the child was justified because there was no guarantee that the child would be adopted.

I wanted you to think about what you would do if you were given the choice between a certain death or a life with no guarantees.

I don't believe that it is any stretch of the imagination to say that if the unborn child were able to make the choice for themselves that they would choose to live despite the fact that they may not get adopted.

If anyone were given the choice between certain death or a life with no guarantees, we would all choose life.

There is no third option for the unborn child.

My autonomy is the child's autonomy, there is no possible distinction.

That is completely untrue.

The unborn are separate and distinct from the mother. They have their own unique human DNA. Their own organs performing vital functions. Their own reactions to outside stimuli.

Rather than be humbled at the idea that you have the ability to form life inside of yourself, you think only of your own selfish convenience?

Until it is developed enough to be born, my life is the child's life.

This is also completely untrue.

A new born child is completely dependent. They literally cannot do anything for themselves and would be dead in hours if left alone.

The child's life depends on you long after it is born.

All of us are born just as small, defenseless and dependent on others.

Your argument that the unborn can be killed because they are not independent is no different than arguing for the murder of a new born because they are just as dependent as the unborn.

In a general sense, sure. We are all pro-life in that sense. But the pro-life movement is a political movement that contrasts with the pro-choice movement. Their sole aim is to politically enforce anti-abortion laws, just as the aim of pro-choice is to have government guarantee abortion rights, which is the right to choose.

I believe that the aim of the pro-life movement is to clarify that the unborn are living human persons and should have the same right to life as the already-born.

There are no such thing as "anti-abortion laws".

It would be the same law that protects you and the unborn from being murdered.

 

[Prestor John]

It hardly matters. You lost so long ago in so many ways it does not matter at all if this one claim of your is correct. And I doubt if it is.

You bore me. Admit that you lost the debate and we can start again. Otherwise it is pointless to continue.

You have repeatedly claimed that I lost or was wrong somehow, but every single time I have asked you to explain these declarations of yours - you refuse or ignore my request.

You are pathetic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have repeatedly claimed that I lost or was wrong somehow, but every single time I have asked you to explain these declarations of yours - you refuse or ignore my request.

You are pathetic.

I have only stated the obvious. I guess requesting that you try to be honest was hoping for too much.

 

[Prestor John]

That males have to sign up for the draft is not an opinion (which violates the Constitution prohibition against involuntary servitude).

I have yet to perform any acts of servitude, voluntary or otherwise.

The worst part of this is that women don't have to sign up but they still get to vote.

We should start by taking away women's suffrage.

That the Religious Right wants to strip the rights of LBGT is not an opinion.

That is most definitely an opinion.

That Republicans punish the poor for being poor is not an opinion.

That is a historically inaccurate opinion.

But they love a fetus so much that if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant they'll strip the woman of bodily autonomy to protect a fetus.

You wouldn't be a pro-abortion nut job if you weren't willing to argue the infinitesimal cases of rape to try and justify all of abortions.

Is there any wonder why so many are unwilling to budge on abortion, even with cases of rape?

You remember the adage, "If you give them an inch, they will walk all over you?"

You are the living embodiment of that.

No one ever claimed reality is pretty.

So we should kill everyone before they have the chance to change it?

 

[Prestor John]

I have only stated the obvious. I guess requesting that you try to be honest was hoping for too much.

You never proved that I was dishonest ever.

You never once supported your claims against me. Not once.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just more evidence that you are literally incapable of seeing this issue from the perspective of the unborn child.

I gave the heart analogy after you claimed that aborting the child was justified because there was no guarantee that the child would be adopted.

I wanted you to think about what you would do if you were given the choice between a certain death or a life with no guarantees.

I don't believe that it is any stretch of the imagination to say that if the unborn child were able to make the choice for themselves that they would choose to live despite the fact that they may not get adopted.

If anyone were given the choice between certain death or a life with no guarantees, we would all choose life.

There is no third option for the unborn child.

That is completely untrue.

The unborn are separate and distinct from the mother. They have their own unique human DNA. Their own organs performing vital functions. Their own reactions to outside stimuli.

Rather than be humbled at the idea that you have the ability to form life inside of yourself, you think only of your own selfish convenience?

This is also completely untrue.

A new born child is completely dependent. They literally cannot do anything for themselves and would be dead in hours if left alone.

The child's life depends on you long after it is born.

All of us are born just as small, defenseless and dependent on others.

Your argument that the unborn can be killed because they are not independent is no different than arguing for the murder of a new born because they are just as dependent as the unborn.

I believe that the aim of the pro-life movement is to clarify that the unborn are living human persons and should have the same right to life as the already-born.

There are no such thing as "anti-abortion laws".

It would be the same law that protects you and the unborn from being murdered.

Just one more point. The burden of proof is still upon you to prove that a fetus or even an embryo is human in both a legal and mail sense. And side neither the law of the Bible agrees with you I don't see how you are going to do it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You never proved that I was dishonest ever.

You never once supported your claims against me. Not once.

wrong again. In fact it was the other way round. How old are you? This could be a serious symptom.