• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pro Life / Pro Choice Debate

Why is everyone on this thread so hellbent on turning this into a theological discussion? How can it be that I am the one that is trying to steer the discussion back to non-theological discourse?

#feellikeimtakingcrazypills

Also - TWDeac has neg repped me twice. Just want to say that guy sucks. I can sort of understand a single negrep, but to actually care enough to do it twice is a sad state of mind. Does anyone actually care about Negrep? I fully expect several more negs after this side thought. A poster's propensity to negrep is equally proportional to their emotional insecurity. I think that is a scientific fact.

I left you the first negrep with no comment and you retaliated. I would have left it be had you not retaliated, but it was too easy once it was apparent that you actually cared.

Sorry for hurting your feelings, Wrangor. I'll try to do better in the future.
 
Wrangor left a hilarious neg recently that said "DONT NEG REP."

I refuse to believe it!

Thread: Republicans for POTUS, 2016 Edition
1. Don't negrep...its silly. 2. You used the slur first 3. I didn't realize that saying you were pro-choice (approve of abortion) was such a negative. I find the irony thick that someone who is supposedly pro womens right would use that slur. Chill





And calling somebody a cunt is no more of a slur than calling somebody a prick, a twat, a cock, a dick, a pussy, or a jhmd.
 
But I am heartened that nobody has suggested on here that morality comes from their religious beliefs or past religious beliefs. PHEW!
 
I left you the first negrep with no comment and you retaliated. I would have left it be had you not retaliated, but it was too easy once it was apparent that you actually cared.

Sorry for hurting your feelings, Wrangor. I'll try to do better in the future.

So much for turning the other cheek
 
I'll keep beating my drum over here that to honestly, sincerely call yourself a believer in the sanctity of life, you cannot possibly support the death penalty or the invasion of another country where there would be one single civilian casualty. You cannot accept collateral damage of any kind to fight wars, despite the righteousness of your cause. Defending your own country from invaders hell bent on killing you would be the only acceptable scenario by which you could kill another human, it would seem.

The moment you accept the killing of a prisoner deems guilty in a court made up of mere mortals, or of killing innocents in a war of politics or expansion or financial gain, you surrender your moral authority on abortion, IMO. It seems very simple. If you believe in the sanctity of life, you are anti-killing of anyone unless they are killing you. Period.

Among the myriad of crappy arguments I have read on this board, this one stands out as being exceptionally bad.

Is the converse true? I'm guessing you would see the structural flaws in this transparent attempt at issue avoidance if we switched the premise and the conclusion.

#Publicschoolfilth, amirite?
 
Do you read your own posts after submitting them? :p
 
I refuse to believe it!

Thread: Republicans for POTUS, 2016 Edition
1. Don't negrep...its silly. 2. You used the slur first 3. I didn't realize that saying you were pro-choice (approve of abortion) was such a negative. I find the irony thick that someone who is supposedly pro womens right would use that slur. Chill





And calling somebody a cunt is no more of a slur than calling somebody a prick, a twat, a cock, a dick, a pussy, or a jhmd.

All synonyms for cunt.
 
Among the myriad of crappy arguments I have read on this board, this one stands out as being exceptionally bad.

Is the converse true? I'm guessing you would see the structural flaws in this transparent attempt at issue avoidance if we switched the premise and the conclusion.

#Publicschoolfilth, amirite?

Well, Im not sitting atop a high horse calling people murderers. I posted that we all pick and choose the killing of humans that's sits well with us. You and Wrangor are ok with vaporizing Iraqi infants and toddlers and their mothers to save hypothetical lives. I'm ok with a woman killing an unviable baby that is forming in her uterus for her reasons.

My position is that we are all assholes who condone, as wrangor calls it, murder. Pick your flavor and get to killin, i reckon.
 
I don't know. It seems your thick, black lines in the sand of what killing is ok and when...are actually arbitrary. I guess I need to understand who gets to decide when war is the "absolute best option to save lives." One person? A couple? A cross-functional, cross-gender, cross-ethnic panel of folks? You? Me? What is an "extreme" case where killing someone via capital punishment is ok? How do we know it is unassailable? Do I get to decide, do you, or do we vote and majority rules? Do other countries and other cultures have to do what we vote on?

Killing is...killing. I really, really don't know when life starts. I am 47 years old, went to Catholic school, have adult kids, and have thought about it and thought about it. I just don't know when it starts. I DO know, however, that any person on the other end of a gun/shell/bomb/chemical during warfare is alive. I would hope folks concerned with the sanctity of life would be, at least, AS concerned about them as they are about fetuses...

This is a good post. Who decides? If you choose to go shock and awe large swaths of babies, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters with hopes and dreams and love in their hearts, how have you in your heart been convinced that these killings are going to save lives? That all peaceful means of resolution have been exhausted? That justice is happening in this scenario? You can't possibly, so you must - to maintain your moral sanctity - err on the side of not killing ANYONE.

Or, shut up calling people murderers and accept that humans kill each other and they justify those killings in different ways. You get to cherry pick the killings that suit your belief system, as I have repeated. But to claim moral superiority for YOUR killings over mine makes you a fool.
 
Are we to assume your beliefs are the polar opposite of Wrangor's? That there is no sanctity of life? That since you believe in "choice" for abortion, you are also ok with wars and death penalty? Do you expect the same consistency in opposite viewpoint?

For the sake of argument let's classify abortion as murder, as well as the death penalty and collateral war damage. Hell, lets just call all homicide murder, why not? It's ridiculous, but whatever.

Here are the murders I choose to accept:

1) abortion before viability
2) self-defense to save your own life or the life of another human
3) killing of the soldier of an invading army

How about you? Anyone else? We know the murders Wrangor and jhmd accept.
 
Last edited:
This is such a false equivalency. You are equating judgement for a child raping murderer to the murder of a helpless, innocent child. Or a death in war because of a just cause (IE WWII - where we were fighting and killing Nazis in order to save lives) with the 50 million children we have aborted since Roe V. Wade. It is so silly it almost isn't worth a comment, but you have said this multiple times and so I figure I would address it. In no way are either of those two comparisons in any manner alike. I feel very comfortable in my position on war (which is war is only justified when it is the absolute best option to save lives) and my position on capital punishment (only in the most extreme cases and when the proof is unassailable) and feel no conflicting morality in my position on the horror of the sanctioned killing of pre-birth children.

I think you need to look up 'false equivalency.'

They are all homicides. Humans killing humans.

But go on, tell us how mass killings of children and mothers and even unborn children (I'm sure some pregnant women were turned to vapor in Baghdad that heroic night we saved all those lives) by missiles fired from ships hundreds of miles away were the best option to save lives.
 
Well, Im not sitting atop a high horse calling people murderers. I posted that we all pick and choose the killing of humans that's sits well with us. You and Wrangor are ok with vaporizing Iraqi infants and toddlers and their mothers to save hypothetical lives. I'm ok with a woman killing an unviable baby that is forming in her uterus for her reasons.

My position is that we are all assholes who condone, as wrangor calls it, murder. Pick your flavor and get to killin, i reckon.

I know you miss the good old days of the Hussein Regime (Iraq's, not ours), but it seems to me that your analysis is lacking a few important facts. Nonetheless, genuine respect for calling it like it is and not making up some smokescreen about abortion not being a form of homicide.
 
Honest question here. I am not a specialist in this subject; so, some scientific input might be necessary. If I understand correctly, the pill and intrauterine devices prevent a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the wall of the womb. And a morning after pill would basically act in the same way. So, if life begins at conception - and I think you can make a pretty good logical case that it does - then both birth control pills and intrauterine devices technically terminate life after it has begun. How would these then be morally better than abortions? Anyway, some expert explanation would be welcome.
 
I know you miss the good old days of the Hussein Regime (Iraq's, not ours), but it seems to me that your analysis is lacking a few important facts. Nonetheless, genuine respect for calling it like it is and not making up some smokescreen about abortion not being a form of homicide.

The only facts are that humans ended the lives of humans. All the other things - malice, justice, horror, necessity - are not facts but human constructs that are open to interpretation and judgement, which differs depending upon who you are asking. So we make determinations that we can all, well, live with. ;)

When it becomes difficult to decide, we turn to different things to guide us. Wrangor - although trying hard to keep religion out of this - informs his opinion with a religious text. All decisions he makes are filtered through that lens, as he posted. Some of us choose to rely solely on our own conscience and experiences to guide us.

But none of our hands are clean, so spare me the righteous indignation.
 
Last edited:
Honest question here. I am not a specialist in this subject; so, some scientific input might be necessary. If I understand correctly, the pill and intrauterine devices prevent a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the wall of the womb. And a morning after pill would basically act in the same way. So, if life begins at conception - and I think you can make a pretty good logical case that it does - then both birth control pills and intrauterine devices technically terminate life after it has begun. How would these then be morally better than abortions? Anyway, some expert explanation would be welcome.

Yeah I think the moral of the story is that there's no real objective line here even if people think it's cut and dry.
 
The only facts are that humans ended the lives of humans. All the other things - malice, justice, horror, necessity - are not facts but human constructs that are open to interpretation and judgement, which differs depending upon who you are asking. So we make determinations that we can all, well, live with. ;)

When it becomes difficult to decide, we turn to different things to guide us. Wrangor - although trying hard to keep religion out of this - informs his opinion with a religious text. All decisions he makes are filtered through that lens, as he posted. Some of us choose to rely solely on our own conscience and experiences to guide us.

But none of our hands are clean, so spare me the righteous indignation.

If abortion is on its own a, ahem, morally viable idea, one wouldn't have to water down its merits by comparing it to other ills. I wonder if we should draw some lessons from the fact that there aren't better arguments in favor of it than what other people think about the Iraq War, counterpoverty measures, capital punishment and religion.
 
I think it's a pretty good argument in favor of abortion that society would bear a substantial cost were those children to have been born. I don't have any qualms with a benefit analysis here though I understand others might find that repulsive. I think the woman's right to choose not to have a child up to viability trumps any right of the fetus and as a matter of public policy that this is the way these values should be reflected. Obviously reasonable minds can differ on that, I just don't think it's as clear-cut as some here are claiming.
 
I've heard that women who graduate from high school and have children after marriage are more likely to be successful. That's a similar pro-abortion argument to what numbers is saying.
 
If abortion is on its own a, ahem, morally viable idea, one wouldn't have to water down its merits by comparing it to other ills. I wonder if we should draw some lessons from the fact that there aren't better arguments in favor of it than what other people think about the Iraq War, counterpoverty measures, capital punishment and religion.

lol, quit being such a dunce cap

How do you think the collective "we" determined the parameters of morality in the first place?
 
I think it's a pretty good argument in favor of abortion that society would bear a substantial cost were those children to have been born. I don't have any qualms with a benefit analysis here though I understand others might find that repulsive. I think the woman's right to choose not to have a child up to viability trumps any right of the fetus and as a matter of public policy that this is the way these values should be reflected. Obviously reasonable minds can differ on that, I just don't think it's as clear-cut as some here are claiming.

Numbers, these arguments are really weak. Actually, children are a plus benefit for society. In fact, they are so important that society literally cannot do without them. A woman's right to greater convenience trumps the right to life of another, in this case, specifically her child? What are you saying? You can't seriously mean that anyone's convenience tops another person's right to exist? You can't be serious.

Ask yourself this: what child, no matter what their circumstances, would prefer to have been aborted rather than live?
 
Back
Top