It is hypocritical to use religion and the Bible to justify opposition to abortion.

[Sheldon]

Only as autonomous as everyone taking care of the baby. Feeding, making sure he/she is healthy, cleaning, dressing, protecting et al.

So what? It is no longer part of a woman's body, thus its continued existence need not involve forcing a woman's body be used against her will.

If it needed a bone marrow transplant and someone you loved was a match, but didn't want to donate, would you be ok with them being forced to donate it?

 

[Kenny]

So what? It is no longer part of a woman's body, thus its continued existence need not involve forcing a woman's body be used against her will.
?

but they have to feed the baby agains't the mom's will... why don't you just let them starve to death?
Baby ‘left to die’ after failed abortion

Oh... wait a minute... we are already doing that.

I wonder what is next.

 

[Kenny]

So what? It is no longer part of a woman's body, thus its continued existence need not involve forcing a woman's body be used against her will.

If it needed a bone marrow transplant and someone you loved was a match, but didn't want to donate, would you be ok with them being forced to donate it?

I think all of the answers have been so weak as to be seen by all.

 

[Sheldon]

but they have to feed the baby agains't the mom's will...

It doesn't matter since it is no longer part of the woman's body, so going against her wishes would not remove her bodily autonomy. Not sure how many different ways this has to be explained? You seem to be introducing endless straw men that no one has argued for?

why don't you just let them starve to death?

Who is them? Why are you suggesting anyone need be starved to death? You just to be using increasing hyperbole that has no relevance to abortion that I can see.

Oh... wait a minute... we are already doing that.

No we don't, that case was in New Zealand, so neither the US nor the UK have such laws, has anyone here advocated for such a law? This is not an argument against abortion either. since that laws applies to withholding treatment after an unsuccessful late termination.

I wonder what is next.

Another logical fallacy from you probably, that one is a slippery slope fallacy by the way.

 

[Sheldon]

I think all of the answers have been so weak as to be seen by all.

Yours? Yes I'd imagine so, you've mostly offered straw man and slippery slope fallacies, peppered with irrelevant hyperbole. Very weak indeed to be honest. In fact you seem to have stopped arguing against abortion some time ago, and are introducing arguments no one has used as straw men you can easily knock over. I mean here for example you ignored the response highlighting your straw man claim:

So what? It is no longer part of a woman's body, thus its continued existence need not involve forcing a woman's body be used against her will.

Then ignored the question that showed how inconsistent your argument was:

If it needed a bone marrow transplant and someone you loved was a match, but didn't want to donate, would you be ok with them being forced to donate it?

 

[Kenny]

No we don't, that case was in New Zealand, so neither the US nor the UK have such laws, has anyone here advocated for such a law? This is not an argument against abortion either. since that laws applies to withholding treatment after an unsuccessful late termination.

Happy to oblige:
Babies Born Alive After Abortion Can be Left to Die in 16 States - LifeNews.com
Former Nurse Testifies Hospital Performed 'Born-Alive' Abortions, Then Sent Babies to 'Comfort Room' To Die

 

[Kenny]

Yours? Yes I'd imagine so, you've mostly offered straw man and slippery slope fallacies, peppered with irrelevant hyperbole. Very weak indeed to be honest. In fact you seem to have stopped arguing against abortion some time ago, and are introducing arguments no one has used as straw men you can easily knock over.

LOL Thou dos't protest too much.

 

[Sheldon]

Happy to oblige:
Babies Born Alive After Abortion Can be Left to Die in 16 States - LifeNews.com
Former Nurse Testifies Hospital Performed 'Born-Alive' Abortions, Then Sent Babies to 'Comfort Room' To Die

And can you quote anyone here has advocated for such laws? Only you seem to have ignored the fact this is a straw man, again. What was that about weak arguments? Such late term abortion are only usually performed from medical necessity, or in extreme circumstances as well, like rape or incest as it explains in the article you linked. I doubt anyone here arguing pro-choice would disagree that, abortions should be freely available as early as possible. If abortions are made illegal these occurrences would likely increase as women were forced to seek illegal and unregulated terminations.

 

[Sheldon]

LOL Thou dos't protest too much.

After accusing others of offering weak arguments, that petty ad hominem fallacy is a something of a priceless own goal.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And can you quote anyone here has advocated for such laws? Only you seem to have ignored the fact this is a straw man, again. What was that about weak arguments?

My take on it: he knows how awful the anti-choice side is inherently, so he needs to grasp at whatever straws he can to make the pro-choice side seem worse.

 

[Kenny]

And can you quote anyone here has advocated for such laws? Only you seem to have ignored the fact this is a straw man, again. What was that about weak arguments?

Two-step

So, first you say "That was New Zealand and then when I give US examples... "ignore" is pushed. The laws that exist for abortion up to 9 months are on the books. When states walk back on protecting live birth's abortion--the are in fact supporting "comfort rooms" for starving live-births.

Now... if you want to argue the stated facts, you are only showing the weakness of your position.

 

[Sheldon]

My take on it: he knows how awful the anti-choice side is inherently, so he needs to grasp at whatever straws he can to make the pro-choice side seem worse.

While sneering at the weak arguments of others without offering anything remotely specific, then resorting to ad hominem when specific examples of why his own arguments have been weak. You have to see the irony.

 

[Sheldon]

Two-step

So, first you say "That was New Zealand and then when I give US examples... "ignore" is pushed. The laws that exist for abortion up to 9 months are on the books. When states walk back on protecting live birth's abortion--the are in fact supporting "comfort rooms" for starving live-births.

I responded to the article you linked which was a case in New Zealand. Then to the claims you later linked from some US states. I also explained it's a straw man, you have yet to address that, straw man arguments are irrational, thus they are weak arguments.

Now... if you want to argue the stated facts, you are only showing the weakness of your position.

Once again then since you're repeating this straw man, I have never advocated for any such laws, so the weak argument here is your irrational straw man. You seem desperate to peddle it fair play, but it is not an argument against abortion per se, as I also explained, and as you also ignored, and I have never made any argument for such laws, so a double fail. You seem to be arguing about post natal care for failed abortions, and what's more this pretty obviously suggests that as rare as they are, more effort should be made to provide women with a termination as early as possible as an obvious way to avoid this.

Weak arguments you say?

 

[Kenny]

I responded to the article you linked which was a case in New Zealand. Then to the claims you later linked from some US states. I also explained it's a straw man, you have yet to address that, straw man arguments are irrational, thus they are weak arguments.



Once again then since you're repeating this straw man, I have never advocated for any such laws, so the weak argument here is your irrational straw man. You seem desperate to peddle it fair play, but it is not an argument against abortion per se, as I also explained, and as you also ignored, and I have never made any argument for such laws, so a double fail. You seem to be arguing about post natal care for failed abortions, and what's more this pretty obviously suggests that as rare as they are, more effort should be made to provide women with a termination as early as possible as an obvious way to avoid this.

Weak arguments you say?

you still protest too much a scratched record. I'm always amused at the weak "strawman" argument when people lack substance.

 

[Sheldon]

you still protest too much a scratched record. I'm always amused at the weak "strawman" argument when people lack substance.

I explained where and how your arguments involved straw man fallacies. I think you simply don't understand that you've used such a fallacy. So from here it looks more like bemusement than amusement.

though it is evident that sneering ad hominem, and emojis is now all you have in response. I wondered how long it would be before you abandoned the pretence of debate, as you have done so many times in the past. I'm guessing the irony of you using yet another ad hominem fallacy, while sneering that others are using weak arguments, but failing to specify where or how, is lost on you.

Are you done debating abortion then? It certainly appears so, on this offering.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

you still protest too much a scratched record.

Your smilies give me the impression that you don't have enough moral sense to feel ashamed about your position.

Here's what you seem not to understand: pro-choice people don't object to anti-abortion positions... or even most anti-abortion tactics. All the pro-choice side objects to are the tactics that **** on and dehumanize pregnant people.

You keep on presenting this false dichotomy: that your only choices are doing nothing about abortion or ****ting on pregnant people. This is bull****.

There are more ways than you could pursue in a lifetime to reduce abortions while still respecting pregnant people as people. Denying rights to pregnant people does not have to be a part of any anti-abortion stance.

Hell - you claim to be a church pastor; someone with a leadership position in something that purports to be a charity. It's in your power to find out why people seek abortions in your community and do something about those underlying causes.

If people are getting abortions because they can't afford parenthood, open a subsidized daycare. If they can't balance work and childcare, use your pulpit to admonish business owners about how paying a living wage and allowing "disconnection" from work are part of a pro-life position.

You have influence with government. Use it to lobby for a full year of paid, job-protected pregnancy and parental leave.

You would get thanks and support from pro-choicers on all of these things while making real progress on the issue of abortion.

How many of these things are you doing?

Are you doing anything to prevent abortions in a way that respects the humanity of the pregnant person? Because you can do both things at the same time.

Proclaiming the personhood of a fetus while ignoring the personhood of a pregnant person is straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel.

 

[Sheldon]

Your smilies give me the impression that you don't have enough moral sense to feel ashamed about your position.

Here's what you seem not to understand: pro-choice people don't object to anti-abortion positions... or even most anti-abortion tactics. All the pro-choice side objects to are the tactics that **** on and dehumanize pregnant people.

You keep on presenting this false dichotomy: that your only choices are doing nothing about abortion or ****ting on pregnant people. This is bull****.

There are more ways than you could pursue in a lifetime to reduce abortions while still respecting pregnant people as people. Denying rights to pregnant people does not have to be a part of any anti-abortion stance.

Hell - you claim to be a church pastor; someone with a leadership position in something that purports to be a charity. It's in your power to find out why people seek abortions in your community and do something about those underlying causes.

If people are getting abortions because they can't afford parenthood, open a subsidized daycare. If they can't balance work and childcare, use your pulpit to admonish business owners about how paying a living wage and allowing "disconnection" from work are part of a pro-life position.

You have influence with government. Use it to lobby for a full year of paid, job-protected pregnancy and parental leave.

You would get thanks and support from pro-choicers on all of these things while making real progress on the issue of abortion.

How many of these things are you doing?

Are you doing anything to prevent abortions in a way that respects the humanity of the pregnant person? Because you can do both things at the same time.

Proclaiming the personhood of a fetus while ignoring the personhood of a pregnant person is straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel.

Good post, and of course how many who want to deny women the choice about how their bodies are used, are in favour of advocate proper and early sex education and contraception, as ways to reduce abortions?

 

[Kenny]

Your smilies give me the impression that you don't have enough moral sense to feel ashamed about your position.

You are absolutely right!

Why should I be ashamed of holding a higher moral sense and standard than what is offered by human reasoning?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are absolutely right!

Why should I be ashamed of holding a higher moral sense and standard than what is offered by human reasoning?

Did you read the rest of my post?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Me: why do you need to **** on pregnant people?

@KenS : to save fetuses!

Me: but you'd save more fetuses if you didn't **** on pregnant people.

@KenS : *crickets*