Saving the empovershed by empoverishing their counterparts will empoverish the whole.
She should not be allowed to abort. The twins are god's will.
No, Aussie, I was using an analogy to show how the phrase "unable to support" does not necessarily mean certain death.Quote by: Aussie
There's a surprise.Quote by: Aussie
I never said it was medically feasible, whatever that means. And I think you'll find his use of the word 'risk' disgarees with your claim of certain death.Quote by: Aussie
Yes, Cephus, I'm absolutely fanatical about questioning your interpretation of what a doctor said about someone I've never met.Quote by: Cephus
But if it's easier to namecall than to address the arguments or to admit you were wrong, feel free.
I do not support abortion. However, if there is strong medical evidence to indicate that the pregnancy threatens the woman's life, abortion might be the only option (after all, carrying through would probably end up threatening the baby's life as well). Rape pregnancies? Let me pull an Obama and call that one 'above my pay grade'.
The Bacon Guy:
As I have never once in my life heard an anti-abortionist propose a stance without an appeal to emotion, I am lead to believe you have been playing Devil's advocate.
Thank you for addressing the core issue: abortion is only a matter of placing one life above another, and the belief in such a code should extend to all aspects of life. That is the key to bringing down the anti-abortion argument (or maintaining it). Indeed, all those who are anti-abortionists can only maintain logical ground for their argument if they are consistent with their belief that life can not be valued by mere human beings. (i.e. They can never say "abortion is only ok sometimes" or "in certain circumstances") To do so would prove their stance is based entirely upon emotion, liable to fault.
Such a belief system entails doubt in all cases of human judgement in respect to the value of life. (They must then take into account the entire medical field, capital punishment, etc)
I was hoping to see some anti-abortionists in here, arguing for themselves. It seems my stereotype that anti-abortionists are typically not very bright seems to, yet again, make its self more apparent in that the only one in here realizing a valid arguement against abortion is, himself, a pro-choicer.
(Then again, the other pro-choicers in here weren't bright enough to know it, eh? haha)
Just joshing you guys.
I didn't take time to read every single post, so I don't know anything.
Kudos on line E. A true master debater have we!
I agree the article is not open to such wide interpretation. Emotions skew facts at both ends of the spectrum.
Its too bad becasue nothing builds up the opposition better than being faulty on our own turf.
I didn't know that the Bible actually okayed this exception.
Even so, not all anti-abortionists are Christians. Some people don't allow this exception. Valuing human life isn't limited to religion, or even morals. Some times the value of human life is measured in dollars even. Ever think of that? haha
Well, hope to hear your response.