We Never Know
No Slack
Focus on my point... 'However condoms do cut down the chances of pregnancy so in turn cut down abortions."
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
When you prevent an abortion...
- Thread starter KW
- Start date
Focus on my point... 'However condoms do cut down the chances of pregnancy so in turn cut down abortions."
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I did not disagree with that, but your premise was false. Or it was inaccurate. Your conclusion was still correct. And in case you missed it the person that he was responding to was a Catholic. And the Catholic Church is well know for their opposition to the use of condoms.
We Never Know
No Slack
Dude...
He said "When you use a condom to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, you prevent an abortion.
Do you disagree?"
I said.. "No I don't agree. Condoms aren't 100%
However condoms do cut down the chances of pregnancy so in turn cut down abortions."
In short... using a condom doesn't prevent an unwanted pregnancy,
@Subduction Zone where is your argument?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Once again, that is a one time event.
"When you (singular) use a (singular) condom (still singular) to prevent an (singular) unwanted pregnancy (and still singular), you (singular) prevent an (singular) abortion (and one last time, still singular)" You added the concept of the general where it was not stated or implied.
We Never Know
No Slack
Read my first post again...
"I said.. "No I don't agree. Condoms aren't 100%
However condoms do cut down the chances of pregnancy so in turn cut down abortions."
No singular there.
We Never Know
No Slack
"masturbation is the murder of millions of potential humans."
Wrong. Without an egg its just sperm.
Same as without an oxygen atom its just hydrogen,, not water
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Now you are claiming that your post was a non sequitur.
Use an approach simar to the implicit assumptions in the OP's original question.
Preventing an abortion doesn't mean:
- there won't be a miscarriage,
- the person won't seek out an abortion again later,
- the pregnancy won't go horribly wrong and kill the pregnant person before the fetus is viable,
- etc., etc.
At a population level, preventing abortions will result in fewer abortions. I disagree with @KW's description of that as "saving lives," but the implicit math is generally right.
By the same token, widespread condom use will also result in fewer abortions.
@KW has asserted that preventing abortions saves lives. Well, I'm asserting that using condoms prevents abortions.
So now @KW has a choice in front of him: if he doesn't want to concede the point that being anti-condom is anti-pro-life, he'll need to tell us where he disagrees with me.
KW
Well-Known Member
Of course I care . Innocent Living human beings should be allowed to live.
KW
Well-Known Member
Nuclear war does that as well. Millions of humans won’t be born so they won’t be killed either.
Your argument is stupid. Nothing personal.
KW
Well-Known Member
No, you did with a brain dead analogy.
You are gasping at straws to justify the killing of innocent babies.
KW
Well-Known Member
Your argument is stupid and an irrelevant tangent.
Try again if you like, but you will never be able to justify killing the innocent.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
We Never Know
No Slack
If thats how you take it, so be it
Which woman, the one choosing the abortion or the one on the receiving end?