Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Bullshit again. If a 10 year old girl is raped and becomes pregnant, of course the pregnancy is outside the bounds of normality, poses a significant threat to her life and physical well-being. There's a chance with such a young mother, the baby wouldn't be carried to term anyway.
Pro-lifers have never argued that people should be forced to have children if it threatens their lives. That's a pro abortion stance that has been attributed to us. And now you're trying to tell us that if we choose life, we must choose the infant over a raped child. That's pretty much the same as telling the pro abortionists that if they choose death, they must of course allow that unwanted children be killed as well.
No, we don't. And it is a stupid premise.
"That's pretty much the same as telling the pro abortionists that if they choose death, they must of course allow that unwanted children be killed as well."
I agree with you.
But, whenever there's an antiabortion thread, there's always someone that claims LIFE has begun with conception, and ENDING LIFE is an abomination, regardless of the circumstances.
This arguement is oddly silent in this thread.
i'm willing to bet that you can't find a single anti-abortion quote from anyone here at USMB that doesn't also add the caveat "unless cases of incest, rape, etc".
how dramatic. Were you a theater major in college?
No, I'm really not examining any one individual's opinion.
I'm exploring the broader question: How can anti-abortionists be morally relativistic?
Either you BELIEVE that life begins at conception, and is sacred (not to be given or taken by mankind), or you do not.
I agree with you, in that I do not believe life begins at conception, and/or is not sacred, and that mankind can decide whether or not to take life.
ahh yes.. the false dichotomy. bravo!
I know a thread has maxed out its stupidity quotient when Shogun posts 1/25.
Now you're just playing games, which is childish.
It's been a childish game from the beginning.
I've always been kinda fascinated by guns, 1 might say I like guns. So then, let's come up with a specific, 1 in a million unlikely scenario and see how my general statement holds up... Oh would you like guns if 1 was pointed at your head?
Duh.
The whole point of the thread was to challenge pro-lifer's beliefs and make them look foolish by using a bizarre, unlikely occurrence that the general statement was never intended to cover.
The whole exercise has been mental masturbation.
Gee, pro-lifer's haven't been rushing in to defend their position. I wonder why? Maybe because the premise was stupid?
The position is undefendable.
But its easier just to stomp your little feet, and say the premise is "stupid."
1. You believe life begins at conception.
OK. No Problemo.
2. Then, you believe life is sacred.
Ok, again: No Problem
3. Finally, you believe Abortion is Immoral
Given the two preceeding beliefs, this makes sense.
4. Then you begin to qualify Abortions using Moral Relativity, e.g. the "self defense" clause.
What? "self defense?" We may as well qualify All Abortions as some form of self-defense. Who better knows how to defend themselves than the mother under "attack?" But, since you cannot accept the premise you have just made, you'll call it "stupid."
You cannot stand that anyone besides yourself might be better qualified to know when they need "self defense;" Because you are so much more "smart" than they are, right?
You are childish, and the premise remains stupid.
And the only person having hysterics here is...you.
You are childish, and the premise remains stupid.
And the only person having hysterics here is...you.
Now you're just playing games, which is childish.
It's been a childish game from the beginning.
I've always been kinda fascinated by guns, 1 might say I like guns. So then, let's come up with a specific, 1 in a million unlikely scenario and see how my general statement holds up... Oh would you like guns if 1 was pointed at your head?
Duh.
The whole point of the thread was to challenge pro-lifer's beliefs and make them look foolish by using a bizarre, unlikely occurrence that the general statement was never intended to cover.
The whole exercise has been mental masturbation.
Gee, pro-lifer's haven't been rushing in to defend their position. I wonder why? Maybe because the premise was stupid?
The position is undefendable.
But its easier just to stomp your little feet, and say the premise is "stupid."
1. You believe life begins at conception.
OK. No Problemo.
2. Then, you believe life is sacred.
Ok, again: No Problem
3. Finally, you believe Abortion is Immoral
Given the two preceeding beliefs, this makes sense.
4. Then you begin to qualify Abortions using Moral Relativity, e.g. the "self defense" clause.
What? "self defense?" We may as well qualify All Abortions as some form of self-defense. Who better knows how to defend themselves than the mother under "attack?" But, since you cannot accept the premise you have just made, you'll call it "stupid."
You cannot stand that anyone besides yourself might be better qualified to know when they need "self defense;" Because you are so much more "smart" than they are, right?
It's been a childish game from the beginning.
I've always been kinda fascinated by guns, 1 might say I like guns. So then, let's come up with a specific, 1 in a million unlikely scenario and see how my general statement holds up... Oh would you like guns if 1 was pointed at your head?
Duh.
The whole point of the thread was to challenge pro-lifer's beliefs and make them look foolish by using a bizarre, unlikely occurrence that the general statement was never intended to cover.
The whole exercise has been mental masturbation.
Gee, pro-lifer's haven't been rushing in to defend their position. I wonder why? Maybe because the premise was stupid?
The position is undefendable.
But its easier just to stomp your little feet, and say the premise is "stupid."
1. You believe life begins at conception.
OK. No Problemo.
2. Then, you believe life is sacred.
Ok, again: No Problem
3. Finally, you believe Abortion is Immoral
Given the two preceeding beliefs, this makes sense.
4. Then you begin to qualify Abortions using Moral Relativity, e.g. the "self defense" clause.
What? "self defense?" We may as well qualify All Abortions as some form of self-defense. Who better knows how to defend themselves than the mother under "attack?" But, since you cannot accept the premise you have just made, you'll call it "stupid."
You cannot stand that anyone besides yourself might be better qualified to know when they need "self defense;" Because you are so much more "smart" than they are, right?
Are you ready for your big fail?
I'm pro-choice.
The position is undefendable.
But its easier just to stomp your little feet, and say the premise is "stupid."
1. You believe life begins at conception.
OK. No Problemo.
2. Then, you believe life is sacred.
Ok, again: No Problem
3. Finally, you believe Abortion is Immoral
Given the two preceeding beliefs, this makes sense.
4. Then you begin to qualify Abortions using Moral Relativity, e.g. the "self defense" clause.
What? "self defense?" We may as well qualify All Abortions as some form of self-defense. Who better knows how to defend themselves than the mother under "attack?" But, since you cannot accept the premise you have just made, you'll call it "stupid."
You cannot stand that anyone besides yourself might be better qualified to know when they need "self defense;" Because you are so much more "smart" than they are, right?
Are you ready for your big fail?
I'm pro-choice.
Ready for yours?
You don't know if I am pro-choice or not.
Are you ready for your big fail?
I'm pro-choice.
Ready for yours?
You don't know if I am pro-choice or not.
Oops, double fail for you.
I never characterized your position on abortion.
You made the assumption that since I think your premise is dumb that I must be on the pro-life side of the issue. I didn't make any assumption on your position.
The position is undefendable.
But its easier just to stomp your little feet, and say the premise is "stupid."
1. You believe life begins at conception.
OK. No Problemo.
2. Then, you believe life is sacred.
Ok, again: No Problem
3. Finally, you believe Abortion is Immoral
Given the two preceeding beliefs, this makes sense.
4. Then you begin to qualify Abortions using Moral Relativity, e.g. the "self defense" clause.
What? "self defense?" We may as well qualify All Abortions as some form of self-defense. Who better knows how to defend themselves than the mother under "attack?" But, since you cannot accept the premise you have just made, you'll call it "stupid."
You cannot stand that anyone besides yourself might be better qualified to know when they need "self defense;" Because you are so much more "smart" than they are, right?
It would probably be better if you went back to that previous posting style where you just sort of sat on the sidelines and tried to be clever.
It was dull, but at least you didn't make yourself look foolish.
It would probably be better if you went back to that previous posting style where you just sort of sat on the sidelines and tried to be clever.
It was dull, but at least you didn't make yourself look foolish.
I'll be unsubscribing the thread so knock yourself out.
...her step father, well castration sounds like a good idea to me.
