Responding to pro-choice advocates

[Volts]

Some pro-choice advocates will use this definition of murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. They assume that "unlawful" means "contrary to the civil law" and say that abortion is not murder according to this definition because our civil government allows it. How would you respond to this?

 

[csuguy]

I'd point out that God's Law is to be followed over man's law, where conflict exists. I'd also point out that everything Hitler did was legal under civil law - so its no secret that man's law can be manipulated so that it ceases to be good and just.

Even for the atheist/agnostic; they should still listen to their conscience over immoral civil laws.

 

[Rusha]

Some pro-choice advocates will use this definition of murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. They assume that "unlawful" means "contrary to the civil law" and say that abortion is not murder according to this definition because our civil government allows it. How would you respond to this?

By referring to it in straight forward terms there is no argument against:

Abortion ... the intentional killing of an unborn baby utilized as back up birth control by irresponsible teens and adults.

 

[Eeset]

Baby = a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.

 

[chrysostom]

Baby = a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.

so it is not a baby until it is born?

 

[Eeset]

so it is not a baby until it is born?

Using a language should involve knowledge of the meaning of words. In this case the word baby comes from middle English and can not refer to an aborted fetus. Ignorance of etymology is not an excuse for butchering the language.

 

[chrysostom]

Using a language should involve knowledge of the meaning of words. In this case the word baby comes from middle English and can not refer to an aborted fetus. Ignorance of etymology is not an excuse for butchering the language.

so it is okay to kill a fetus
but
not a baby?

 

[Eeset]

so it is okay to kill a fetus
but
not a baby?

What do you think?
I was simply pointing out that the term "unborn baby" exhibits ignorance of the English language.

 

[chrysostom]

What do you think?

it is not okay to kill a fetus
so
what do you think?

 

[annabenedetti]

so it is okay to kill a fetus
but
not a baby?

It's not okay. As a mother, I always knew that the tiny life I was carrying in my womb was not my own body but someone else, newly created.

Eeset may say she's against abortion (or sidestep the question) but she clearly has a utilitarian approach to life.

It is not a matter of blame. The question that should be asked is why do women have abortions. The answer is not that complicated. It is because some of us end up pregnant and in economic situations that are not viable. Faced with a choice of feeding the children I have versus having another and seeing all of them underfed the answer, as atrocious as it may be, is abortion.

Chrys you really can not appreciate this. It is not something you have or can ever face.

 

[chrysostom]

looks like anna does appreciate this

 

[annabenedetti]

I'm prolife, always have been. I'm just letting Eeset's past words answer your question.

 

[Eeset]

looks like anna does appreciate this

That's so gay.

 

[chrysostom]

I'm prolife, always have been. I'm just letting Eeset's past words answer your question.

it looks like you are putting her words in your mouth

you can change what it looks like

 

[annabenedetti]

it looks like you are putting her words in your mouth

you can change what it looks like

It seemed clear enough to me what I was doing but if it'll help to spell it out for you I'll make an edit.

 

[Rusha]

Using a language should involve knowledge of the meaning of words. In this case the word baby comes from middle English and can not refer to an aborted fetus. Ignorance of etymology is not an excuse for butchering the language.

Your language is the best friend to every pro-abortion advocate.

 

[Rusha]

It's not okay. As a mother, I always knew that the tiny life I was carrying in my womb was not my own body but someone else, newly created.

Eeset may say she's against abortion (or sidestep the question) but she clearly has a utilitarian approach to life.

Originally Posted by Eeset View Post
It is not a matter of blame. The question that should be asked is why do women have abortions. The answer is not that complicated. It is because some of us end up pregnant and in economic situations that are not viable. Faced with a choice of feeding the children I have versus having another and seeing all of them underfed the answer, as atrocious as it may be, is abortion.

Chrys you really can not appreciate this. It is not something you have or can ever face.

The answer is that it *doesn't matter* what excuses you make up to justify abortions. Being a female should not give one a special right to slaughter their unborn baby just because it is legal to do so.

 

[WizardofOz]

Your language is the best friend to every pro-abortion advocate.

Pro-choicers always want to debate semantics...:sigh:

 

[Rusha]

Pro-choicers always want to debate semantics...:sigh:

Yep ... "it's not REALLY a baby if I don't believe it is" ...

Notice the word "it"? They intentionally seek to dehumanize and devalue the life and humanity of the unborn baby.

 

[Volts]

Using a language should involve knowledge of the meaning of words. In this case the word baby comes from middle English and can not refer to an aborted fetus. Ignorance of etymology is not an excuse for butchering the language.

Do you think the words "human person" should be used to refer to an aborted fetus?