[Kauboy]

Maybe we can start with the list of advocacy groups you are part of and go from there… or even the threads you comment on in which you speak against senseless killing.

We are discussing a topic. This will not devolve into the personal space.

You made a claim. Your claim was contested WITH support. A reply to the contestation is expected.
Support your claim or acquiesce.

 

[theprincipal]

We are discussing a topic. This will not devolve into the personal space.

You made a claim. Your claim was contested WITH support. A reply to the contestation is expected.
Support your claim or acquiesce.

You did not contest my observation with credible evidence; Please show me the other causes that “save innocent lives” that the “pro-life” groups supports. Clearly “pro-life” is an “anti-abortion” group and not universal “anti-senseless killings” group. They are solely focused on the fetus. For evidence you can simply look up the definition of “pro-life” or the mission of any number of “pro-life” organizations…. “Pro-birth” in my opinion.

 

[Underrock]

In this corner is theprincipal, and the other corner is Kauboy: Will it be a knockout or draw? Either way, it's a damned fine and thoughtful discussion between two intelligent folks. I'm waiting to see how (if) it resolves.

 

[Kauboy]

You did not contest my observation with credible evidence

I gave you a specific case. Even the Catholic church came out in support of Terri, comparing their stance on her life as equal to their stance on unborn babies.
Pro-life is pro-life. You can play with semantics all you like.

“Pro-birth” in my opinion.

'Nuff said.

 

[theprincipal]

I gave you a specific case. Even the Catholic church came out in support of Terri, comparing their stance on her life as equal to their stance on unborn babies.
Pro-life is pro-life. You can play with semantics all you like.

'Nuff said.

The fallacy in your thinking is that we are not debating the position of the Catholic Church. We are clearly discussing the scope of “life” that the “pro-life” movement is “pro”. My point is that the “pro-life” movement is solely focused on the life of the fetus. For some reason you think that because other movements exist that protect lives, that expands the scope of the “pro-life” movement. I disagree. Falsely conflating the “pro-life” movement with other groups/causes, doesn’t contest my claim. Nice try.

 

[WolfBrother]

Maybe we can start with the list of advocacy groups you are part of and go from there… or even the threads you comment on in which you speak against senseless killing.

Your continuing niggling reminds me of an irritating ankle biting very small dog.

Until you respond to the numerous requests for your sources why don’t you just shut the infierno up?

 

[theprincipal]

Your continuing niggling reminds me of an irritating ankle biting very small dog.

Until you respond to the numerous requests for your sources why don’t you just shut the infierno up?

Kauboy is engaging in a typical straw man fallacy… asking me “to provide any instance where innocent human lives are being lost and there is no advocate group fighting against the atrocity”….. Yeah, I’m going to give sources for a claim that I didn’t make.

That being said, your ad hominem attack is a bit bush league. I don’t think Kauboy needs you to pretend to be his daddy; he can take care of himself.

 

[Kauboy]

@WolfBrother, @theprincipal, chill with the personal stuff. Stay on topic.

I've engaged in no straw-man argument.
You made a claim.
I provided a rebuttal that your claim does not fully encompass the entirety of the movement.
You asked for an example of the movement that extends passed birth.
I provided a specific example that clearly refuted your belief that pro-life is solely confined to births.
You ignored it and later claimed it to be without evidence. Since the case was nationally known and widely argued, the evidence is available and sound.
You persisted with "they should fight for causes that are promoting life consistently", which I already revealed to be the case, and provided the Catholic church as one such entity, being against the practice of euthanasia (link).
Again, you dismiss and persist without any substantive counterpoint being made. Just accusations against the general term "pro-life".

We can agree that there are specific organizations which are pro-life, and solely focus on the birth of babies.
But you made a generalization about a broad term, which is easy to defeat and has been.

If you wish to continue to argue your point, the onus is on you to prove that all so-called "pro-life" movements are solely and completely confined to the realm of births.
Since I've already provided an argument on behalf of the Catholic church, this endeavor will be impossible. But you're free to try.

No straw man. But I do expect more effort than simple dismissal because you don't like the facts presented.

I will concede that the organizations which are specifically focused on births could be called "anti-abortion".
But you would have to make an extremely strong argument for why their opponents are not then rightly called "pro-abortion". Of the three(at minimum) humans involved in a pregnancy, two(or more) of them don't get any "choice", so that descriptor is an intellectual red herring.

 

[Mr.penguin]

@theprincipal the reason pro-life Christians are focused on abortion is because unlike other groups of people a fetus can't speak for themselves. Every other group can. You don't need to look far to find pro-life causes in other aspects of life. Every church has ministry's and many do good work everyday for years. As for what I am involved in look up catholic charity's and the knights of columbus. The problem is when a Christian supports a cause it is done in secret. When a person boasts about their charity work it is written: I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

 

[CC Pereira]

It is my understanding that if the Roe vs Wade case does get overturned, it simply allows the legality of abortion to be up to each state. If so, I think it is unlikely that all states will make it legal or illegal, or that all states would agree on the specifics. If a pregnant woman lives in a state where medically unnecessary abortions are illegal, she would still have the choice of going to another state where medically unnecessary abortions are legal.

I have already expressed the details of my opinion about abortion, but I think one way to simplify this subject, would be to not only allow each state to make its own laws regarding abortion, but also to consider the medical opinion of OBGYNs and insurance companies. If for example, you have all 10 fingers and they all work as they are supposed to, but you want a surgeon to cut off a finger just for kicks (maybe you just don't like the way it looks), the surgeon (unless he / she makes a living from unnecessary surgeries, such as boob jobs, nose jobs, and liposuctions) would not agree to do it or refer the patient to someone else to do it, and the insurance company would not agree to pay for it. Likewise, if the OBGYN's opinion (not the opinion of an abortion clinic) and insurance companies are taken into account, if a pregnant woman wanted to get a medically unnecessary abortion, the OBGYN would not agree to do it or refer the patient to get it done by another, and the insurance company would not pay for it.