Komen foundation & Planned Parenthood

[JKTex]

Not that familiar with them....

That doens't surprise me at all. If you want proof of anything, it would be responsible, or shall we say less pathetic, for you to find proof in what you're using to make a point. I'm sure you can find something just as quick as I can/did. It only took a shot view of the video to know that group would have a pretty interesting track record.

[Common Sense Al]

That doens't surprise me at all. If you want proof of anything, it would be responsible, or shall we say less pathetic, for you to find proof in what you're using to make a point. I'm sure you can find something just as quick as I can/did. It only took a shot view of the video to know that group would have a pretty interesting track record.

The video supplied much of its own proof... in case you missed all the graphic photos, images, and screenshots of PP's website, so they seemed pretty credible to me on the facts they were stating... but again, if you know something different that conflicts with a "fact" stated or shown in the clip in question, then feel free to share.

[JKTex]

That doens't surprise me at all. If you want proof of anything, it would be responsible, or shall we say less pathetic, for you to find proof in what you're using to make a point. I'm sure you can find something just as quick as I can/did. It only took a shot view of the video to know that group would have a pretty interesting track record.

The video supplied much of its own proof... in case you missed all the graphic photos, images, and screenshots of PP's website, so they seemed pretty credible to me on the facts they were stating... but again, if you know something different that conflicts with a "fact" stated or shown in the clip in question, then feel free to share.

I don't honestly think you're that naive, but you put on a good act to shelter yourself from any truth.

If I want to learn about the fur industry, I don't go to PETA.

[sandy brake]

That was the absolutely funniest video I’ve seen in a long time. I can see PPH playing it at one of their conventions to see the crap they are up against. Really, Al, I mean REALLY?? I am genuinely surprised, but at least now I know.

Thanks for the laugh!!

[Common Sense Al]

Thanks for the laugh!!

Glad you enjoyed it.

[josh]

Almost a week since I posted the simple argument against abortion and not a single pro-abortion advocate has attempted a rebuttal. Look...nobody owes me a response on anything I post...I just think it somewhat telling that the strong pro-abortion views being thrown around on this board are not willing to engage in anything other than slogan posting.

[sandy brake]

As a pro-CHOICE advocate ( I am not FOR abortion, only the choice to do so) I did not respond to your posting as nothing new was said. At the end of the day, nothing will change between anti-choice and pro-choice advocates, so why waste time? I argued w/ Al last year, and finally concluded, w/ the support of JKTex, it is a waste of time. You may respond to this, or you may not. In any case, this is the end of my posting on the anti-choice issue. Ciao.

[skiing1974]

Josh,
this is what I typed on the 7th:
"there is no reasoning that one side will see of the other and vice versa. Mother's life and fetus' life. Both are lives, right? One is on this Earth, the other in that one's belly. One side makes the two equal, the other doesn't, neither does current law and potentially neither does science?"

There is so much going into reasoning on both sides, but I believe it boils down to two things: when does the "cell" become a "life" and what right a woman who carries that "cell" or "life" has? On the first one, religion versus science, no need to argue, as much as Mr.Al would always equate the two if both look at it in the "right"/Al's way. On the 2nd one, who are you, Al, me, any Church, any gov't board full of men, to tell a woman what she should do with her body? Also, thankfully, very few of us have wives with reasons many women have for aborting. Amen to Sandy, me too.

[josh]

It is actually a very easy question which you both have sidestepped...for what reason I can only guess. There are two very simple arguments from which a conclusion follows. I assume that you have no good response to either premise and if that is how you want to leave it then so be it. Hopefully, you see just how poor of an argument you are making for your side though. The argument does not rely on religion to advance. In fact, religion is nowhere to be found in either premise.

And actually, BOTH lives are on this earth. I'm not sure what distinction the location on this earth has to do with whether or not life has value but perhaps that is something you could expand on.

[skiing1974]

To your argument, like I said already, no argument. You can say life starts at some point, I can say it doesn't until some other point.
To the other point, you sidestepped, woman has no right to choose?

[Common Sense Al]

You can say life starts at some point, I can say it doesn't until some other point.

You can? I don't believe you can say that life starts at some other point... if you can, then exactly what is that point where you believe life "suddenly" starts, and since you believe in science, how about using science to support your point where life starts?

To the other point, you sidestepped, woman has no right to choose?

Why don't you define your question better... a woman has the right to choose exactly what? Do I have a right to choose to punch someone in the face? Probably not... Do I have the right to choose what I eat for breakfast? Probably yes... Do I have the right to directly take an innocent human life? Definitely no.

[josh]

To your argument, like I said already, no argument. You can say life starts at some point, I can say it doesn't until some other point.
To the other point, you sidestepped, woman has no right to choose?

Which women?
The one with a child inside, or the child inside? Which one has a "right to choose"? Why are you arbitrarily assigning "rights" to the one that happens to be more developed than the other?

[Pipeline]

Premise 1. It is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without propert justification
Premise 2. Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being
Conclusion. Abortion is wrong
For those who only know how to sling insults and not make valid arguments - the above is an example of a simple logical argument. If Premise 1 and Premise 2 are true, then the conclusion must be true.

As a change of pace from the insults, I would love to see a pro-abortion person tell me where the argument above fails. My guess is nobody is going to object to Premise 1 but would love to hear all arguments. OR...you could just continue with the name calling.

Sorry Josh, Meant to reply sooner, but don't like to look up whilst someone is on their soapbox. You are right to invoke logic. If both premises are true, then your conclusion is indeed valid. But the age old argument remains with premise #2. If an innocent life is defined as the point of conception, your premises and conclusion are true. If someone else defines an innocent life as birth, premise #2 is false, as the conclusion would ergo be. I'm not in either life raft on the issue, but logic is a passion, mostly. You brought it up. As Spock says "the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few". Pure logic, without prejudice.

[falcon999]

is there a way that I can block all of these discussions, like if a discussion gets a tag "abortion" it won't ever show up as a new post or anything in my list

[Pipeline]

is there a way that I can block all of these discussions, like if a discussion gets a tag "abortion" it won't ever show up as a new post or anything in my list

Not a "fat rat's hairy ass" chance, pal.