Posted on 06/30/2015 11:20:24 PM PDT by kathsua
QED.
At what age is a dependent human considered too much of a burden to be allowed to live? The answer is any age. Thus, an elder generation of pro-choice believers should be quite understanding then a younger generation of pro-choice believers, that they schooled, decides to abort the elder.
Make everyone watch an abortion. Not only will abortions fall rapidly, you’ll find out who the truly sick amongst us are that remain in support of it. I thought I was a cool college kid that could care less about abortion either way. I had some one who was pro abortion ask me what would get me “to support a women’s right to choose”. I said before I can say I support something I’d have to see it. Long story short I went from a could careless college student to pro life in about 5 minutes. I couldn’t believe this person still supported abortion after watching the abortion of a 12 week old BABY. I never spoke with that person again.
See Gov. Richard Lamm, and his “duty to die”.
Isn’t that the problem? Arguing a point? Isn’t it conviction and what God demands?
God is what won me over.
Maybe not at the precise second that the seed was planted and perhaps there was no immediate gratification for the farmer, but my heart was made ready for God to speak to me.
I just needed that seed planted and sometimes the glory isn’t for us to witness. Maybe we need to trust God and have faith—He can turn the most hard heart. He can make the blind see.
We just need to plant the seeds and trust Him, He can certainly handle the rest. Faith.
wow can you write a screen play for this? sounds like you can.
The stupidest article I can recall reading at LifeNews.
There is no logical fallacy involved. I don’t know what this Tim Brahm person is trying to prove.
The question he considers “fallacious” isn’t trying to prove that there’s no distinction between a person and a non-person. It’s trying to show that the pro-abort CANNOT KNOW and CANNOT SAY when the unborn child “becomes” a person. It’s the pro-abort who CLAIMS that the unborn baby BECOMES a person at some point later than conception. Pro-lifers don’t make that stupid claim.
What all pro-abortion arguments prove is that wicked people who want to kill babies will say ANYTHING. They have absolutely no commitment to intellectual honesty.
The pro-life gives choice: give the kid up for adoption or keep it.
The continuum stops at fertilization.
I just wrote the truth. And when I’ve told others “watch an abortion” they think I AM the sick one. Yet they refuse to watch and go around supporting killing babies. I don’t go around telling everyone to watch an abortion, just those that get in my face about it. I think people that refuse to watch and call themselves “pro choice” know deep down its wrong and murder. They just buy into the rhetoric and shield themselves from the truth.
All you do is ask the idiot if the developing human being at any point develops into anything BUT a human being.
When they say ‘No”... Then you look them straight in the face and say “Then you are an advocate of murder.”
Period. You do not ‘persuade’ these evil idiots. You shame them into reality.
Actually I don’t find anything “fallacious” with the so called “continuum” argument. It is not a fallacy.
The illusion of a fallacy only comes into play because what you’re testing for (i.e a person, or a beard) is not defined.
If you define “beard” as being “1 inch or more long”, then the continuum argument can be utilized just fine.
I think it was Aristotle who said that all arguments can be resolved in ten minutes if the people arguing first agree on the definition of the terms.
And in the case of the abortion argument, what the two sides can’t seem to agree on is what makes “something” a person, and when. Everything else is just noise.
The prolifers say it’s at the point of conception, the abortionists say its whenever the mother feels she doesn’t want the baby anymore (including for some, after birth).
And you wonder why this argument hasn’t been settled??
The bigger mistake is to perpetuate the notion that important moral issues need to be expertly debated in order to discover a truth, which really should simply be self evident, regardless of whether someone who is blind to that truth can more artfully craft a narrative in support of their ignorance.
So when it comes to something like this, then perhaps the only response should be - look, I’m not going to debate with you what should be obvious. For example, if you told me slavery was OK under some circumstances, I’d simply shake my head and walk away. So likewise, if you cannot see this the way I do, then I really have nothing else to say.
No, I'm clear on that. The argument hasn't been settled because a lot of people want the right to kill their babies.
One thing you will NEVER see happen on any TV show or in any newspaper is the definition of terms.
What you WILL see is a general naming of the “issue,” followed by “I just feel...” and then a free-for-all of other people screaming “I just feel...”
And you wonder why this argument hasn’t been settled??
there are pro-aborts who are just plain evil. one can show how science prooves the pro-ife position but they are too determined to kill babies to give an inch that they are wrong.
“Make everyone watch an abortion. Not only will abortions fall rapidly, you’ll find out who the truly sick amongst us are that remain in support of it.”
This is off topic, but similarly:
“Make everyone watch two homosexual men have sex. Not only will support for the homosexual movement fall rapidly, you’ll find out who the truly sick amongst us are that remain in support of it.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.