Quote:mesquite wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Despite your enthusiasm for taking a shot at me, Mesquite, I'll stand by what I said. For those of us who know that the being still in the womb is a human baby and not a subhuman something else, there is no way to get around the implications of killing a baby when an abortion is performed.
Of course you will stand by what you said. It has been your line for as long as I have seen your postings on this issue. The farce is in the air you put on about never using the term "baby killer"
Show the quote where I used the term.
Quote:Foxfyre wrote:I notice you didn't bother to post any of my posts in which I said I do not presume to be a judge of anyone in this matter, nor have I brought religion into the principle at any time. Of course if you had, you couldn't tar me with the 'evil Bible thumper' image to discredit me, could you?
You think I should bring up posts that demonstrate your hypocrisy about not judging others?
Seems to me that it is you and some of the others trying to defend abortion that are doing all the judging of others here. If you think saying that abortion is wrong is judging others and that makes prolifers 'bad', then hell, let's say that its wrong to oppose wife beating or child neglect or burglary. And if you say that's silly, well we can make it socially acceptable by calling wife beating discipline or calling child neglect parental rights or calling theft self improvement instead of what it is.
Prolifers believe it is wrong to kill the born or the unborn as a matter of convenience. For the most part, the prolife argument here has been reasoned and has not been personally directed at those who have abortions, but if judging an action as right or wrong makes us judgmental, then so be it.
But you and some others who refer to the prolife stance by all sorts of derogatory references and to the prolifers themselves by all sorts of uncomplimentary adjectives, many very pointedly personally directed, of course are not being judgmental in the least. 
Quote:Quote:Foxfyre wrote:Thunder was absolutely right when he said that it is the opinion of the prolifers that there is no right to kill another human being for convenience. But the pro-abortion people won't even concede that point.
I do not know any pro-abortion people, so I cannot comment.
Your implication: Saying that abortion is killing an unborn human being is the same as using the term 'baby killers'.
One is personallydirected. The other is stating the circumstance. If you can't see the difference, there's no way I can educate you on that one.
But to say that it is okay that a woman should be able to get an abortion at any time, in any place, for any reason, even as the baby emerges from the womb. . ..to say that it is not a baby but some subhuman thing that is being destroyed. . .to say that no restrictions should ever be put on abortion for any reason. . . .to say all that is not being pro-abortion?
Give me a break.
Quote:Foxfyre wrote:The latest argument now is that it is okay because the Supreme Court says it is okay. I think those who agonized and finally agreed on the exquisite language of Roe v Wade would not agree that their intent was what the pro-abortion crowd has made of it.
When under attack, it is common for defenses to go up. Your expression, "exquisite language of Roe v Wade" is not one I have heard from many pro-lifers.
If you had been reading with any degree of objectivity you would have seen the phrase used here and on other threads. And you would have seen the arguments that accompanied it. And you might not make so many statements that are so off the mark.
Quote:Foxfyre wrote:And I wonder if those who now point to the Supreme Court as their moral authority will have the same point of view about that if the Court at some time should rule that the states can impose restrictions on abortion.
The Supreme Court as a moral authority? Is that your invention?
Again if you had bothered to read it all instead of just my posts or somebody else you wanted to criticize, ridicule, or excoriate, you would have seen how the argument has been used that the Supreme Court is cited as opposing the point of view of the prolifers--even to the point of saying that the Supreme Court says it is not wrong.
What is your definition of morality if not the difference between right and wrong?
Quote:Foxfyre wrote:I will add a disclaimer here that I do not think all pro choice people are pro abortion. All the prolifers who have contributed to this thread have agreed there are times and circumstances in which the choice for abortion may be the moral choice.
For myself I can concede that there that there may be times and circumstances in which the choice for abortion may not be the moral choice. I have seen many others here express similar views.
Then if you concede that abortion is not always the moral choice, how do you rationalize that no restrictions of any kind whatsoever should be placed on abortion? That is all the prolifers have been arguing and you see us (me) as the bad guys here. Not one of the prolifers have suggested that abortion should be outlawed period.'
And out of curiosity, however, what would you see as being immoral related to abortion?
Quote:Foxfyre wrote:But so long as there are those out there who say it is perfectly moral for the the woman to choose to kill a healthy baby as it emerges from the womb for no other reason than she does not want the baby, there will be those of us who are willing to say that is wrong and it should not stand.
There you go again, using the word moral in a way that I have not seen any pro-choice advocate on A2K use.
Again, what is your definition of morality if not the difference between right and wrong?
I almost asked this question before and I will ask it now. In a partial birth abortion, the baby has emerged feet first with only the top half of the head still inside the birth canal. The baby is then killed by driving scissors or other sharp implement into the base of the skull, the brain is sucked out to collapse the skull, and the body discarded. This is a legal procedure under current law not dependent on any concerns for the woman's life or health. What if the doctor miscalculated and the baby pops on out before it can be killed? Can they still legally kill it? If not, why not?
And if you say no, then give me a rationale for why the baby is expendable in the moments before being fully expelled. And if you say it is not, then how is a viable baby expendable while still in the womb? And if it is not, then you can work backwards to what point it is less morally reprehensible or okay to kill a baby purely out of convenience.
Or you can go with Frank's definition and say it is not a baby until it is completely separate from the mother's body.
And the debate will go on. And some of you on the proabortion side will continue to have to attack the prolifers because you simply can't make your case in any other way that abortion for any reason, at any time, for any purpose is okay.
Note how you spent your time attacking the words I use, the way I express myself, the way I phrase something. But you couldn't come up with any rationale for how I was wrong about abortion, huh?
