thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 02:30 pm
No problabo. Smile
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 02:40 pm
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
real life wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
The abortion problem, as I see it is that those getting abortions are the more educated, while those not getting an abortion are the fruitcake religionists that we don't need more of.


You have picked up on the fact that the demographics of this issue are against you, and you are correct for several reasons.

One, as you implied, is that pro-life folks will tend to raise their kids to be pro-life. They will eventually outnumber the pro-abortion folks who tend to have fewer kids, due in part to the fact that the pro-abortion folks have killed some of theirs. Those who you seem to consider more 'educated' are driving themselves to extinction. Yep, real smart crowd.

It's a vicious circle. As someone said, "Children of parents who don't have children, also tend not to have children." if ya know what I mean.


What bull is this? Pro-abortion folks will not necessarily have abortions. To think that all pro-abortion folks will have abortions is over-simplistic and an argument that no intelligent pro-life supporter would ever fall for.



I don't think I said "all" . I said "some".
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 02:45 pm
Pro-lifers are pro choice. They just believe that whenever possible, the choice should be made before the baby is well on the way. Most pro lifers will concede that many who favor legalized abortion are not necessarily pro abortion, but neither are they pro choice in the way that pro life people are pro choice.

Perhaps a better designation would be pro unrestricted legalized abortion.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 03:00 pm
Lets define them all:(correct me where needed)

Pro-life...favors life in any situation.

Pro-choice...favors the woman's decision on abortion.

Anti-abortion...favors ban of all abortions

What else?
0 Replies
 
Questioner
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 04:36 pm
thunder_runner32 wrote:
Lets define them all:(correct me where needed)

Pro-life...favors life in any situation.

Pro-choice...favors the woman's decision on abortion.

Anti-abortion...favors ban of all abortions

What else?


Pro-choice . . . favors the woman's right to choose what happens to her body.

Semantics yes, but all good spin is.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 10:56 pm
Questioner wrote:
thunder_runner32 wrote:
Lets define them all:(correct me where needed)

Pro-life...favors life in any situation.

Pro-choice...favors the woman's decision on abortion.

Anti-abortion...favors ban of all abortions

What else?


Pro-choice . . . favors the woman's right to choose what happens to her body.

Semantics yes, but all good spin is.
Spin is what the pro-abortion side is most known for.

Your statement is a prime example. The woman has a right to determine what happens to her body, but the unborn has a body also, with a beating heart, etc.

Your pro-abortion sloganeering tries to ignore that medical fact of life and obscure the real nature of the issue.

Not gonna happen. You want to discuss abortion, you're gonna have to continually face the fact that there is someone else besides just the mother who has a body, who has rights and who is alive and deserves to remain alive.

The semantic dodges that the pro-abortion crowd have continually employed as their first and only defense serve only to reveal the bankruptcy of the pro-abortion position.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 11:05 pm
thunder_runner32 wrote:
Lets define them all:(correct me where needed)

Pro-life...favors life in any situation.

Yes, but pro lifers also acknowledge that there are those very difficult situations in which a deicison must be made whether to terminate a pregnancy and all but a very few wackos--none on this forum--would not presume to judge a woman who is faced with such a decision. Pro lifer do not favor terminating a healthy baby's life for the convenience of the woman.

Pro-choice...favors the woman's decision on abortion.

Pro lifer favor the woman choosing to not take risks that could result in an unwanted pregnancy. Once pregant, the choice involves two live and two bodies, not one. and pro lifers believe that both deserve equal consideration.

Anti-abortion...favors ban of all abortions

This is not the definition of the pro lifers in this forum who are anti-aboriton. All recognize that there are those extremely rare situations in which abortion must be allowed.

What else?


Did you just overlook the obvious last definition: Pro-abortion? I define these as those who think the life of the baby should be of no concern whatsoever if the woman does not want the baby. How do you define it?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 11:54 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
thunder_runner32 wrote:
Lets define them all:(correct me where needed)

Pro-life...favors life in any situation.

Yes, but pro lifers also acknowledge that there are those very difficult situations in which a deicison must be made whether to terminate a pregnancy and all but a very few wackos--none on this forum--would not presume to judge a woman who is faced with such a decision. Pro lifer do not favor terminating a healthy baby's life for the convenience of the woman.

Pro-choice...favors the woman's decision on abortion.

Pro lifer favor the woman choosing to not take risks that could result in an unwanted pregnancy. Once pregant, the choice involves two live and two bodies, not one. and pro lifers believe that both deserve equal consideration.

Anti-abortion...favors ban of all abortions

This is not the definition of the pro lifers in this forum who are anti-aboriton. All recognize that there are those extremely rare situations in which abortion must be allowed.

What else?


Did you just overlook the obvious last definition: Pro-abortion? I define these as those who think the life of the baby should be of no concern whatsoever if the woman does not want the baby. How do you define it?


This is precisely the position of every single abortion defender in this forum. They allow NO consideration for the life of the unborn if the woman does not want it. Some of them wring their hands and sort of let on that it is appalling, but in the end they line up straight and march to the tune with no exceptions that I have seen.

I have continually asked abortion defenders in this forum what legal restrictions on abortion[/u] they would support and consider mandatory. The silence is deafening.

If I've overlooked anyone, now would be a good time to set the record straight. I will be glad to hear of it.
0 Replies
 
Questioner
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 08:03 am
real life wrote:

Your pro-abortion sloganeering tries to ignore that medical fact of life and obscure the real nature of the issue.


And your insistence that there is medical fact of life is a prime example of the incessant twattery that you continually come back to. If there's medical proof, go get some rules changed for you'll have all the ammo you need. If there isn't, then kindly shut up about it until there is.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 08:54 am
Questioner wrote:
real life wrote:

Your pro-abortion sloganeering tries to ignore that medical fact of life and obscure the real nature of the issue.


And your insistence that there is medical fact of life is a prime example of the incessant twattery that you continually come back to. If there's medical proof, go get some rules changed for you'll have all the ammo you need. If there isn't, then kindly shut up about it until there is.


This is a typical pro-abortion response. 'Just shut up.' No attempt to address the issue.

You have been assimilated.
0 Replies
 
Questioner
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 09:08 am
real life wrote:
Questioner wrote:
real life wrote:

Your pro-abortion sloganeering tries to ignore that medical fact of life and obscure the real nature of the issue.


And your insistence that there is medical fact of life is a prime example of the incessant twattery that you continually come back to. If there's medical proof, go get some rules changed for you'll have all the ammo you need. If there isn't, then kindly shut up about it until there is.


This is a typical pro-abortion response. 'Just shut up.' No attempt to address the issue.

You have been assimilated.


Really? That would be a typical pro-choice response? I believe the honus has been on you to address this issue, and you've done so so poorly that, surprise, nothing has changed.

Someone of moderate intellect would possibly consider that you're going about it the wrong way, though I see that has no affect on you.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 09:46 am
Questioner wrote:
real life wrote:
Questioner wrote:
real life wrote:

Your pro-abortion sloganeering tries to ignore that medical fact of life and obscure the real nature of the issue.


And your insistence that there is medical fact of life is a prime example of the incessant twattery that you continually come back to. If there's medical proof, go get some rules changed for you'll have all the ammo you need. If there isn't, then kindly shut up about it until there is.


This is a typical pro-abortion response. 'Just shut up.' No attempt to address the issue.

You have been assimilated.


Really? That would be a typical pro-choice response? I believe the honus has been on you to address this issue, and you've done so so poorly that, surprise, nothing has changed.

Someone of moderate intellect would possibly consider that you're going about it the wrong way, though I see that has no affect on you.
0 Replies
 
Questioner
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 10:03 am
real life wrote:


Coming from you this is the height of hypocrisy. Your responses in most cases are little more than thinly veiled excuses to slander people who do not share your point of view.

Granted, occasionally you put forth something worth considering, but not often, and certainly not with your last assault on my tongue-in-cheek reply to Thunder.

Quote:
Formerly you did try to address the issue, but not much anymore. As I said, apparently you have been assimilated, and now your responses are empty shouts of disparaging remarks, and not much else. Sad to see you have sunk to this level.


You gave in to repititious babbling long before I even bothered with this thread. Kindly do not speak of sinking to levels when you are still a few feet below me.

Quote:


To what point? We've drudged through every argument a hundred times, and while you feel the need to continually spew the same falsities over and over I've seen this thread for what it is, and have mostly given up on it.

So again I say, once you come up with some real evidence to support your claim of 'medical facts' then your use of it in an argument can be accepted. Until you do, it won't be.

If the words 'shut up' offend you, then try 'cease your non factual ramblings'.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 10:58 am
Hi Questioner,

I see that you've added 'You're lying' to your repetroire of non-responses. Nice job.

I refer you back to this post http://www.able2know.com/forums/a2k-post1506430.html&highlight=heartbeat#1506430 for a discussion from a medical standpoint that was submitted in court.

I have my doubts as to whether you will read it, but perhaps others who are interested in the topic will.
0 Replies
 
Questioner
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 11:16 am
real life wrote:
Hi Questioner,

I see that you've added 'You're lying' to your repetroire of non-responses. Nice job.

I refer you back to this post http://www.able2know.com/forums/a2k-post1506430.html&highlight=heartbeat#1506430 for a discussion from a medical standpoint that was submitted in court.

I have my doubts as to whether you will read it, but perhaps others who are interested in the topic will.


Your doubts concern me not at all. It is certainly an interesting read.

So this information was presented, and wasn't enough. Perhaps then more is needed? One may surmise then, instead of continuously saying that you have the proof and they're just not accepting it, it would behoove you to spend your time aquiring better proof?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 11:20 am
So, you don't consider this report by 220 doctors as "real" evidence?

Questioner seems to have more answers than questions!
0 Replies
 
Questioner
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 11:48 am
Intrepid wrote:
So, you don't consider this report by 220 doctors as "real" evidence?

Questioner seems to have more answers than questions!


Funny, haven't heard that one before.

And no, I didn't consider it to not be 'real' evidence. I do consider it to not be 'sufficient' evidence, since it was apparently ignored.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 12:29 pm
Questioner wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
So, you don't consider this report by 220 doctors as "real" evidence?

Questioner seems to have more answers than questions!


Funny, haven't heard that one before.

And no, I didn't consider it to not be 'real' evidence. I do consider it to not be 'sufficient' evidence, since it was apparently ignored.


Confused The fact that you do not consider it to be insufficient evidence does not lessen it's value as evidence. If I was consider you to be insufficient in your posts, would that make you valueless?
0 Replies
 
Questioner
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 12:36 pm
Intrepid wrote:
Questioner wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
So, you don't consider this report by 220 doctors as "real" evidence?

Questioner seems to have more answers than questions!


Funny, haven't heard that one before.

And no, I didn't consider it to not be 'real' evidence. I do consider it to not be 'sufficient' evidence, since it was apparently ignored.


Confused The fact that you do not consider it to be insufficient evidence does not lessen it's value as evidence. If I was consider you to be insufficient in your posts, would that make you valueless?


If you'll take the time to go and read what was written up until the point you decided to leap in you'll note that I'm referring to the evidence not being sufficient enough for those that have the power to change the rules/laws.

What I think is of little consequence in that regard.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 12:37 pm
I did not leap in. I have been in since the beginning. It is just that I do not agree with you.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » ABORTION.......
  3. » Page 142
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 03:15:46