Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

10 FALLACIES IN THE ABORTION DEBATE
Conservative Commentary ^ | 8 November 2002 | Peter Cuthbertson

Posted on 11/08/2002 1:09:07 PM PST by Tomalak

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 441-442 next last
To: Tomalak
They go on to suggest either that men's opinions have no right to be heard at all, or that abortion benefits women against men.

Every abortion of which I am familiar was the man's choice. The woman's choice was not to have the abortion.

41 posted on 11/08/2002 8:43:40 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: palmer
The moment when the egg becomes fertilised is not in any sense arbitrary. It is the time when two separate human substances actually form a distinct, complete human life.

As for black and white morality, I don't know any morality that is not "black and "white" in the sense that you mean it. Morality is about telling you what is right and what is wrong. People who talk about grey areas in my experience just want to avoid calling a spade a spade, a terrorist a terrorist and something evil evil.




42 posted on 11/08/2002 8:53:22 PM PST by Tomalak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

To: All
Ok, I just found one argument, any others?

What About a "Right to My Own Body"?

1 Corinthians 6:19, 20 "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own. You were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."

44 posted on 11/08/2002 9:46:15 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: nanrod
If Roe/Wade were to be repealed, it would be theoretically possible for a woman to spend her entire adult life from 13 to 45 or therebouts having an entire sequence of children for the benefit of rapists and being forced into that by the law.

Cite a single example of this occurring prior to Roe v. Wade. Go ahead, we'll wait.

[Cue the crickets.]

45 posted on 11/08/2002 9:59:42 PM PST by FormerLib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
What About a "Right to My Own Body"?

That ended when an additional body began to grow within it.

46 posted on 11/08/2002 10:00:42 PM PST by FormerLib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
At the end of Kings (OT), there is the comment that 'there was no king in Israel, so every man did what was right in his own eyes.' The transference to Christianity my be made that Jesus is the King in the Spirit of man, else every man does what is right in his (or her) own eyes. One individual giving life support to an individual nascent human life does what is right in her own eyes when there is no King in her Spirit. [My Catholic friends might want to consider this before voting next time, don'tcha know.]
47 posted on 11/08/2002 10:09:05 PM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Just say this. The English common law is of course rooted in the religious culture. One can secularize it, as St. Nicholas or Father Christmas is turned into Santa Claus, but that means a sort of corruption takes place. The law becomes a parody of itself.
48 posted on 11/08/2002 10:29:35 PM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Lizavetta
Or how bizarre it must be for a couple who, after aborting, to look at each other, knowing they were complicit in killing their child. I suspect those relationships don't last long. I wonder if anyone has bothered to ask that question of the people who do?
49 posted on 11/08/2002 10:37:20 PM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
Turn the hypothesis around: Roe v. Wade allows a woman to become pregnant constantly between the ages of 15 and 45 yet never bring any to term because she chooses to have them all killed. If that is not monstrous, nothing is.
50 posted on 11/08/2002 10:43:13 PM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
What you said!
51 posted on 11/08/2002 10:59:48 PM PST by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Here's a secular one.

Place your right heel on the floor and hold your foot at a 45 degree angle, toes upward. Now lower your toes to the floor. It would be silly to tell you that you don't have a right to make that motion with your body. However, now imagine yourself in your car, driving down the street. About half a block ahead of you, an old woman steps into the street and begins to jaywalk. At that moment, you no longer have the right to make that movement with your foot, for doing so will accelerate the car and run over the old woman. Regardless of the fact that she is herself violating the law, you do not have a legal right to take an action (the aforementioned foot movement) which will injure or kill her. In fact, your legal (and moral) obligation is to move your foot to the brake to try and avoid running her down.

So you see, no one has an absolute right to control their body in every situation.

52 posted on 11/08/2002 11:01:06 PM PST by william clark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Tomalak
Human life begins at conception....period. If one believes in the sanctity of human life....then one cannot accept that abortion is anything but murder. This is just reality....and we must teach this reality to those who don't understand. The word "choice" just obfuscates this reality. This "choice" involves the life of a human being....who has no say in the decision. Most folks who believe they have a right to make that choice understand that it is abhorent to murder an innocent human being. They must learn that that unborn human being has as much right to live as any other. And when they understand, hopefully they will "choose" to carry that child and give it to someone who will love him/her. And they will be much more prudent when it comes to their activities that lead to the creation of life.
53 posted on 11/08/2002 11:52:18 PM PST by hove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: william clark
Very good! Excellent refutation of quasi-libertarian arguments.

Riddle me this: why is it that the courts can force a man into life support for eighteen years but a woman has a right to terminate life support that would last at most nine months?

54 posted on 11/08/2002 11:58:45 PM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
That #3 is not a fallacy but rather a truthful objection.
55 posted on 11/09/2002 4:33:39 AM PST by palmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tomalak
Morality is about telling you what is right and what is wrong.

"Morals" are a deceptive replacement for the avoidance of sin. Morality is a human invention. Morals come from man. Conviction of the Holy Spirit comes from God - - if you are a Christian.

I challenge many people who use the argument of "morality" as opposed to logic. The Religious Left uses the bait and switch (borrowed from Sears) "moral" argument to justify public funding of abortion.

I am an atheist who is stridently anti-abortion. Abortion is a ritualized mass murder cult, a widespread human sacrifice of the idolatrous and Pagan Religious Left...

Where do I get this idea?

Consider the words of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan:

Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness

Chap. xlv. Of Demonology and other Relics of the Religion of the Gentiles.

[14] An image, in the most strict signification of the word, is the resemblance of something visible: in which sense the fantastical forms, apparitions, or seemings of visible bodies to the sight, are only images; such as are the show of a man or other thing in the water, by reflection or refraction; or of the sun or stars by direct vision in the air; which are nothing real in the things seen, nor in the place where they seem to be; nor are their magnitudes and figures the same with that of the object, but changeable, by the variation of the organs of sight, or by glasses; and are present oftentimes in our imagination, and in our dreams, when the object is absent; or changed into other colours, and shapes, as things that depend only upon the fancy. And these are the images which are originally and most properly called ideas and idols, and derived from the language of the Grecians, with whom the word eido signifieth to see. They are also called phantasms, which is in the same language, apparitions. And from these images it is that one of the faculties of man's nature is called the imagination. And from hence it is manifest that there neither is, nor can be, any image made of a thing invisible.

[15] It is also evident that there can be no image of a thing infinite: for all the images and phantasms that are made by the impression of things visible are figured. But figure is quantity every way determined, and therefore there can be no image of God, nor of the soul of man, nor of spirits; but only of bodies visible, that is, bodies that have light in themselves, or are by such enlightened.

[16] And whereas a man can fancy shapes he never saw, making up a figure out of the parts of divers creatures, as the poets make their centaurs, chimeras and other monsters never seen, so can he also give matter to those shapes, and make them in wood, clay or metal. And these are also called images, not for the resemblance of any corporeal thing, but for the resemblance of some phantastical inhabitants of the brain of the maker. But in these idols, as they are originally in the brain, and as they are painted, carved moulded or molten in matter, there is a similitude of one to the other, for which the material body made by art may be said to be the image of the fantastical idol made by nature.

"...but for the resemblance of some phantastical inhabitants of the brain of the maker. But in these idols, as they are originally in the brain, and as they are painted, carved moulded or molten in matter, there is a similitude of one to the other,..."

56 posted on 11/09/2002 5:27:07 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
...as St. Nicholas or Father Christmas is turned into Santa Claus, but that means a sort of corruption takes place.

Idolatry. Graven images...

Søren Kierkegaard from The Sickness Unto Death:

The fantastic is, of course, most closely related to the imagination [Phantasien], but the imagination is related in it’s turn to feeling, understanding, and will, so that a person’s feelings, understanding and will may be fantastic. Fantasy is, in general the medium of infinitization… (emphasis mine)

The fantastic is generally speaking what carries a person into the infinite in such a way that it only leads him away from himself and thus prevents him from coming back to himself.

Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan:

Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness

Chap. xlv. Of Demonology and other Relics of the Religion of the Gentiles.

[14] An image, in the most strict signification of the word, is the resemblance of something visible: in which sense the fantastical forms, apparitions, or seemings of visible bodies to the sight, are only images; such as are the show of a man or other thing in the water, by reflection or refraction; or of the sun or stars by direct vision in the air; which are nothing real in the things seen, nor in the place where they seem to be; nor are their magnitudes and figures the same with that of the object, but changeable, by the variation of the organs of sight, or by glasses; and are present oftentimes in our imagination, and in our dreams, when the object is absent; or changed into other colours, and shapes, as things that depend only upon the fancy. And these are the images which are originally and most properly called ideas and idols, and derived from the language of the Grecians, with whom the word eido signifieth to see. They are also called phantasms, which is in the same language, apparitions. And from these images it is that one of the faculties of man's nature is called the imagination. And from hence it is manifest that there neither is, nor can be, any image made of a thing invisible.

[15] It is also evident that there can be no image of a thing infinite: for all the images and phantasms that are made by the impression of things visible are figured. But figure is quantity every way determined, and therefore there can be no image of God, nor of the soul of man, nor of spirits; but only of bodies visible, that is, bodies that have light in themselves, or are by such enlightened.

[16] And whereas a man can fancy shapes he never saw, making up a figure out of the parts of divers creatures, as the poets make their centaurs, chimeras and other monsters never seen, so can he also give matter to those shapes, and make them in wood, clay or metal. And these are also called images, not for the resemblance of any corporeal thing, but for the resemblance of some phantastical inhabitants of the brain of the maker. But in these idols, as they are originally in the brain, and as they are painted, carved moulded or molten in matter, there is a similitude of one to the other, for which the material body made by art may be said to be the image of the fantastical idol made by nature.


57 posted on 11/09/2002 5:32:52 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Tomalak
I've always said I'm pro-choice, as long as the choice doesn't include murder or anything else immoral.
58 posted on 11/09/2002 5:37:36 AM PST by FrdmLvr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mafree
See #56...
59 posted on 11/09/2002 5:45:14 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: FrdmLvr
LOL what a great way of putting it. And by that note, the only choice Democrats want you to have is to kill your children. They want to decide if you keep a gun at home, which school your kids go to, they want to conscript your kids into the gay lobby, making banners for "gay pride" parades a la California, they want to remove parental choice over contraception, abortion and prayer. Indeed, the only choice the Democrats give is to murder your kids below a certain age.

Democrats: anti-choice on everything but infanticide.




60 posted on 11/09/2002 7:15:15 AM PST by Tomalak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 441-442 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson