Which Religion is the One True Religion?

real life wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I know they are not "living human beings"...as you have termed them....and I think that the host carrying them....the pregnant woman....has a right to decide if she wants to terminate the pregnancy by abortion.

By "the woman's right to an abortion" are you speaking of a legal right? Or a moral right?

Both.

Quote:

If a woman lives where abortion is illegal, would you still say you think she has a right to an abortion?

Yes....just as I think a person living where freedom of speech is illegal has that right anyway.

Quote:

Where does this right come from? Are you postulating moral rights that may or may not be recognized by the law?

We have a "right" to do anything. Society...for reasons too difficult to explain in detail here...can take away some of that "rights." That is what laws are about...preventing individuals from "doing anthing."

Quote:

If there are moral rights that are not recognized by the law then the child can also have a moral right to life, even though it is not recognized by the law, could he not?

What child, Life. WHAT CHILD?

Read this:

"Nations Worldwide Support a Woman's Right to Choose Abortion

March 2000






Nations around the world have adopted laws that protect women's right to choose abortion. Currently, 62% of the world's people live in countries where induced abortion is permitted either for a wide range of reasons or without restriction as to reason. In contrast, 26% of all people reside in nations where abortion is generally prohibited. The last 20 years have seen a clear trend toward abortion liberalization. Those countries that are lagging behind should follow the example of their neighbors in regions throughout the world. Guyana, South Africa, India, Cambodia, and Canada have abortion laws that are among the world's most liberal."

In other words, most civilized countries allow the woman to choose. It's called "Women's Rights."

Got that?

Changing the word "child" doesn't change the issue Frank. You can only dodge it semantically in your own mind. It's very clear when you try to gloss over something you don't want to face up to.

If a woman can have rights that the law has denied her (as you thought so in the case of a woman that lives where abortion is illegal ) , then why cannot the unborn have a right to life, even if the law has denied that right?

If your answer is that he has no legal rights because he hasn't yet been born, then you are arguing in a circle.

(The court made abortion legal because the unborn have no rights. Since the unborn have no rights it is ok to make abortion legal.) So why no right to life for the unborn, Frank?

I didn't say that! Get a grip. Your projections are very tiresome.

Why don't you spend your time at this forum. You might have better luck with it.

Finally, men talk about their penises.
[ Go to page: 1 ... 36, 37, 38 ]

[

Quote:

If a woman can have rights that the law has denied her (as you thought so in the case of a woman that lives where abortion is illegal ) , then why cannot the unborn have a right to life, even if the law has denied that right?

What?????

A woman has the right to have control over her body. I have no idea of how you are tying to contort logic to bolster your bullshyt...but this argument of yours simply makes no sense.

"Gloss over what?"

"If a woman can have rights that the law has denied her (as you thought so in the case of a woman that lives where abortion is illegal ) , then why cannot the unborn have a right to life, even if the law has denied that right?"


Woman = A
Unborn = B
A does not equal B

The absense of logic in your question proves your inability to write coherent sentences.

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Gloss over what?"

"If a woman can have rights that the law has denied her (as you thought so in the case of a woman that lives where abortion is illegal ) , then why cannot the unborn have a right to life, even if the law has denied that right?"


Woman = A
Unborn = B
A does not equal B

The absense of logic in your question proves your inability to write coherent sentences.

Are you trying to say that anyone who is not a woman has no rights?

Maybe you should proofread your posts.

real life wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Gloss over what?"

"If a woman can have rights that the law has denied her (as you thought so in the case of a woman that lives where abortion is illegal ) , then why cannot the unborn have a right to life, even if the law has denied that right?"


Woman = A
Unborn = B
A does not equal B

The absense of logic in your question proves your inability to write coherent sentences.

Are you trying to say that anyone who is not a woman has no rights?

Maybe you should proofread your posts.

Your army of straw men is amazing.

timberlandko wrote:

real life wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Gloss over what?"

"If a woman can have rights that the law has denied her (as you thought so in the case of a woman that lives where abortion is illegal ) , then why cannot the unborn have a right to life, even if the law has denied that right?"


Woman = A
Unborn = B
A does not equal B

The absense of logic in your question proves your inability to write coherent sentences.

Are you trying to say that anyone who is not a woman has no rights?

Maybe you should proofread your posts.

Your army of straw men is amazing.

Really? Do you care to defend his position?

real life wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

real life wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Gloss over what?"

"If a woman can have rights that the law has denied her (as you thought so in the case of a woman that lives where abortion is illegal ) , then why cannot the unborn have a right to life, even if the law has denied that right?"


Woman = A
Unborn = B
A does not equal B

The absense of logic in your question proves your inability to write coherent sentences.

Are you trying to say that anyone who is not a woman has no rights?

Maybe you should proofread your posts.

Your army of straw men is amazing.

Really? Do you care to defend his position?

Really real; you should have criticized CI for his non sequitur. (The fact that he proved nothing) Instead you misrepresented his unnecessarily obvious assertion that a woman does not equal an unborn, and criticized that. If you will read timber's posts, you will find he is closer to you on this issue than many others. I suggest you take his suggestions and refine your arguments.

Know also I am with you all the way short of advocating legislative action.

[Of course it makes sense Frank. You simply gloss over it because you cannot reasonably answer it.

You are stating that the woman's right is absolute --with or without the agreement of the law.

But you are arguing that the unborn has no right --because it is not recognized by the law.

You cannot have it both ways Frank. If a woman can have a right that is not dependent on the law of the land, then so can the unborn have a right to life-- even though at present the law of the land does not recognize it.

Legislation is needed, Neo. Desparately needed. But legislation alone won't solve this.

If abortion was illegal tomorrow, there would still be lots of folks who think it's ok.

Whether they ever had an abortion or aided someone in getting one or not, they'd still think it's ok.

That's the problem. Education is needed. The more people understand the medical facts of how and when a baby develops in utero, the more pro-life they become; and the earlier in pregnancy they support banning it.

The pro-abortion crowd...

...is deathly afraid that people will find out when a baby's heart starts beating (before the end of the 4th week), when his brain starts functioning and producing brainwaves (by the 6th week), etc.........because people innately understand you're talking about a living human being then, not a blob of tissue.

Directors of pro-life CPCs will tell you that when a mother-to-be sees her baby on the ultrasound, it's like a light bulb switches on in her head. It's a baby, there he is.

You hit the nail on the head, my friend, when you mentioned the hair splitting and semantic gymnastics that are used to avoid the obvious. But when a mother sees her baby, the pro-abortion semantic gyrations become an obvious sham.

It's ok. My "kitchen table" arguments aren't the pretty ones found behind the podium, but I think most folks get my drift and that's why I put it out there.

real life wrote:

The more people understand the medical facts of how and when a baby develops in utero, the more pro-life they become; and the earlier in pregnancy they support banning it.

The more emotional people become...the less logical.

So???


..............................The sham...such as there is...comes from your side of this issue. You anti-choice people make me sick.