tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post3230419085434184271..comments2024-01-08T10:10:48.074+00:00Comments on That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill: More on Brighton's Pro-Life Campaigners Arrested YesterdayThe Boneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10271719805983763595noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-69081700008805685592010-08-17T01:08:16.370+01:002010-08-17T01:08:16.370+01:00Yes gays are so offensive, they should be outlawed...Yes gays are so offensive, they should be outlawed. Better still, the death penalty is to good for them like in Uganda.Catholics always know whats bestnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-45814283867258859722010-08-12T21:39:51.355+01:002010-08-12T21:39:51.355+01:00No, I was saying that the selling of abortion to t...No, I was saying that the selling of abortion to the UK is recent, monied and travelled on a wave of cultural change dressed up as freedom, but in reality entails human sacrifice. You were saying Catholics shouldn't persuade, or there was no point trying - but I was saying that the 'pro-abortion' lobby does this.<br /><br />The 'pro-abortion' lobby STILL does this, seeks to persuade the populace - hence the furore over the Marie Stopes 'Are you late?' commercial in which abortion isn't even mentioned (yes, it's still taboo!)The Boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10271719805983763595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-65062477317600466802010-08-12T21:35:36.700+01:002010-08-12T21:35:36.700+01:00Is the reality of abortion and its victims, 'b...Is the reality of abortion and its victims, 'bullying'?<br /><br />I've attended the display once and nobody went up to someone to call them a 'murderer' or anything.<br /><br />The image is a lot to stomach, granted, but then, the reality is horrific.The Boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10271719805983763595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-57206689997697941582010-08-12T20:45:14.514+01:002010-08-12T20:45:14.514+01:00Ok, so couldn't someone have used the same arg...Ok, so couldn't someone have used the same argument to stop slavery being prohibited?? 'Until recently slavery was legal, for centuries people allowed it'. If your basic point is (as it appears to be) all change is bad, or suspect, then slavery should be reinstated. <br /><br />Of course I am a product of my time. As are you. Cynical frustrated men the both of us. I understand my failing on the basis of a) my laziness and b) a generally dismal social and political order. You understand yours on the basis of a) your sins b) a secular world order. Not too different really. But by convincing yourself that you are aligned with the forces of good you have managed to also convince yourself that you have made a good argument and that this gives you the right to bully people outside a clinic. That's not on. You can give endless spiels about persecuted and martyred Christians in Rome (wait a minute... shouldn't we go back tot he Roman paganism if change is so bad) but that does not prove you are right. I can whine on about Taoism or Hindu beliefs, it doesn't prove that a non-Taoist or non-Hindu country should be held to ransom by my demands though, does itDannynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-5394847214511122932010-08-12T20:36:05.614+01:002010-08-12T20:36:05.614+01:00The full legalisation of abortion is a recent thin...The full legalisation of abortion is a recent thing, Danny. The abortion thing is still taboo, hence women aren't on the front of Hello! magazine telling us about their latest abortion.<br /><br />50-100 years ago it was more so. Even in non-Catholic circles, yes this once was a Christian country, it was perceived as wicked and evil. It is after the sixties that society in the UK begins to change its mind with regard to sex, sexuality and the unborn child. You can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the statute book will give you the answer.<br /><br />Prior to 1967 it was actually illegal...You know, that's why they called it a 'back-street' abortion.<br /><br />There was a concerted campaign in the run up and beyond this period in which abortion was campaigned 'for', actively, as a 'right'. <br /><br />This was achieved with the help of Planned Parenthood in the US, the BPAS in the UK, Marie Stopes etc, those in their pay and of their persuasion. It was a top down thing. Society was not crying out for child murder.<br /><br />Still, there was a culture shift - a zeitgeist. It was, quite quickly really, more and more acceptable to kill the unborn child. It wasn't grounded in medicine, not really, it wasn't grounded in science, (abortion clinics do not like ultrasound - its too revealing) and it certainly wasn't grounded in morality. It was presented in terms of 'freedom' and 'liberation', the buzz words that made having a child sound like the worst form of torture.<br /><br />So, clearly, some people are able to do a lot of 'persuading' and 'convincing' in terms of presenting abortion as a 'right'. Those people just are not the Church with an opinion formed by the Holy Spirit, who guides Her down the ages.<br /><br />Like I say, you're a product of the time. I am, even with all my sins and faults, a product of the Church, which is why I believe what the Church says whereas you believe what the zeitgeist says. <br /><br />The early Christians used to rescue unwanted babies on hillsides in Jerusalem where babies would be left to die from exposure, if they were, say, deformed or viewed as a 'curse' or a 'burden'. <br /><br />Christians who campaign against abortion nowadays are just carrying on the tradition of the Church from the beginning and thanks be to God we have that freedom of religion in the UK.<br /><br />Cough.The Boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10271719805983763595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-86274293136367043022010-08-12T20:22:15.801+01:002010-08-12T20:22:15.801+01:00"From conception there is no longer an egg. I..."From conception there is no longer an egg. It is a newly formed self integrating human being."<br /><br />No, it's an egg. It is a single ovum. It divides into two cells. Then into four and so on. But four cells do not a person make. <br /><br />Why do I need to determine an arbitrary point at which the non-person becomes a person? Do I need to tell you the exact point at which a precursor of the human evolved into the human to support evolution? We become persons when we fulfil the criteria our species sets for personhood. Babies are people, we all agree. Eggs are not, no one agrees (apart from you and the Canadian mothership you gets your cue cards from)Dannynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-75260213184152789622010-08-12T20:18:38.193+01:002010-08-12T20:18:38.193+01:00"All I am saying is, unborn children are babi..."All I am saying is, unborn children are babies"<br /><br />Look, we've done this in many different ways now. They are humans, we agree. They are not like you or me, and therefore do not need to be protected like you or I do. You can't simply keep repeating the point in new ways and hoping it will become more true.<br /><br />And again, the Catholic thing is getting confused. No Catholic would have an abortion. The Church forbids it. But you are telling non-Catholics that they shouldn't have an abortion. So you must have an argument beyond 'the Church forbids it'. I wanted to know what it was. You couldn't supply it. You could just say: 'a foetus is classed as a human' (agreed, but irrelevant), then 'a foetus has rights' (clearly not, hence the debate), then 'the church says don't do it'. Fine. But why is that persuasive to non-Catholics?? It must be, because you are leaving toys outside a clinic in an effort to persuade people (by the way, leaving a box of toys outside an abortion clinic is completely mental. It's the type of thing a serial killer would do! 'The toy box murderer')<br /><br />Finally - yes, you're right. yet we still feel death is a tragedy. Surely that is a contradiction in your world view, not mine. I am upset at death because I will never see the dead person again. You think you will, or that they have achieved some higher unity. So your sadness is illogical<br /><br />Anyway, for me the 'trolling' is a serious matter. I am a reasonable sort of fellow, and if I don;t think abortion is murder, and you, another reasonable sort of fellow, say it is, then I want to know if I'm wrong. Thankfully, this exchange has shown me that I am not. Your argument, like EVERY argument against abortion, starts out on a supposedly neutral terrain ('it's nothing to do with belief in God, it is a fact') and very quickly slides headlong into a point that can only be sustained from a particular theological perspective. I am glad that I am not wrong, because I would hate to be supporting murder. Thankfully I see no reason to re-asses my opinion that an egg is not a personDannynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-22562057837563428052010-08-12T20:04:57.142+01:002010-08-12T20:04:57.142+01:00Danny you are avoiding the question. If it is oka...Danny you are avoiding the question. If it is okay to kill a human being but not okay to kill a person, then what is the set of criteria for determining which is which? <br />And don't change the subject about sperm and eggs being persons no one is attempting to make that claim. From conception there is no longer an egg. It is a newly formed self integrating human being. Stop setting up a straw man and answer the question. What is the difference between a human being and a person?Andy Stephensonhttp://www.abort67.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-8576830769728985682010-08-12T20:02:31.478+01:002010-08-12T20:02:31.478+01:00Danny,
All I am saying is, unborn children are ba...Danny,<br /><br />All I am saying is, unborn children are babies, we really shouldn't kill babies and I'm apparently the 'hate-filled person'!<br /><br />Get a grip man! It very much appears that it is you who is losing your rudder, not I!<br /><br />You're trolling on a Catholic blog and now you're the one getting upset because the blog is, er, Catholic and you can't convince me or other Catholics on the personhood of the unborn child.<br /><br />For the record, the World has been very kind to me. For a start, I was allowed to live by those who conceived me, my mum and dad. It got better from then. Sure, I have my ups and downs and I'll die, but I'll die in the hope of God's mercy.<br /><br />By the way, you could use that 'sending a soul back to God' argument for murder at any stage of life. I don't think it works, Bro!The Boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10271719805983763595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-15066708793794377302010-08-12T19:50:29.998+01:002010-08-12T19:50:29.998+01:00[struggling to keep calm].... Look, you twunt, if ...[struggling to keep calm].... Look, you twunt, if you are right, WHY THE BLOODY HELL WAS SLAVERY ONLY OUTLAWED IN A NON-CATHOLIC COUNTRY ONCE RELIGION AS A SOCIAL FORCE WAS ON THE WANE????? Why did the practice of slavery exist in the Middle Ages?? Why did Catholic Spain enslave the territories of the New World?? Your argument simply cannot explain the facts, <br /><br />On the contrary, it is YOU who are a man of the times: hate filled, disconsolate, rudderless, floating around vaguely clinging to any doctrine you can in order to convince yourself that life has a meaning. <br /><br />"The unborn child is a person who cannot answer back" - no. it is not a person. It cannot answer back because it has no notion of its own existence, it has no personhood to speak of, you IMAGINE it does, because this gives you a purpose (or rather it confirms your hatred of the world that has been so unkind you you)<br /><br />"At some point it is worthwhile asking yourself why you defend abortion. For, surely, as long as there is doubt, any doubt, about the personhood, or not, of an individual inside the womb, we should err on the side of caution."<br /><br />because there can be no doubt. I simply cannot be wrong about my interpretation of an egg not being a person. You might not like my interpretation (just as I don't like yours), but that is not the same thing as me being wrong. I have no doubt that it is senseless to speak of an egg as a person. What does that even mean?? Unless I assumed an egg could have a soul (I don't) it's a non-started. Even if I did assume an egg had a soul, well, the soul goes back to God. Yay! Fulfilment of the purpose of life, no?<br /><br />"We do not reduce people down to DNA as Dawkins does." glad to see you've changed your argument. So I hope in future, you will NOT claim to make these statements on the basis of any biological knowledge. If your argument is: "Abortion is wrong because the Church says so, and the Church has been around for ages, so it can't be wrong", ok fine. <br /><br />So the Sun goes around the earth too. Never wrong are they! <br />Anyway, I think your logic is impeccable. But as the Egyptian gods were around for even longer that the Church, I am now obliged to believe that the sun is a superhuman being riding a canoe across the sky. It must be true - it was believed for 7,000 years!! Great argumentDannynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-72058573167641550922010-08-12T19:38:54.217+01:002010-08-12T19:38:54.217+01:00You are very much a man of your time, Danny.
The...You are very much a man of your time, Danny. <br /><br />The vast majority of the society in which you live does not condemn the practise of abortion or a range of issues on which the Church stands firm. <br /><br />Therefore, if you were around when slavery was still legal, fine and dandy, who knows? How can you be sure that you would have stood up and defended slaves, since they, too were considered 'sub-human' and their humanity was denied.<br /><br />The unborn child is a person who cannot answer back, a person in the earliest stages of life who cannot possibly defend himself or herself from the unjust invasion of others into the womb. He or she is totally at the mercy of doctors, nurses, parents and, indeed policitians.<br /><br />At some point it is worthwhile asking yourself why you defend abortion. For, surely, as long as there is doubt, any doubt, about the personhood, or not, of an individual inside the womb, we should err on the side of caution.<br /><br />For the Church, there is no doubt about the personhood of the foetus, and the unborn child's inherent value as being made 'in the image and likeness of God', since that article of dogma has been handed down the ages. Modernity cannot alter it, nor whims of society nor the morality of the time.<br /><br />We do not reduce people down to DNA as Dawkins does. For Dawkins, we are only animals, with no instrinisic value, in a valueless, meaningless World of chance, chaos, deprived of any real hope or any redemption at all.<br /><br />'Live and let live'. A nice motto - but harder than it first appears, especially when it comes to the unborn child.The Boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10271719805983763595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-75127083871760468722010-08-12T19:23:54.589+01:002010-08-12T19:23:54.589+01:00Danny, the evidence clearly states that human life...Danny, the evidence clearly states that human life begins at conception. You seem to think it ok to kill that human being. You think the unborn child is not entitled to the status of person making it okay to kill the unborn. Please explain the difference between a human being and a person.Andy Stephensonhttp://www.abort67.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-63006062971939304582010-08-12T19:12:42.884+01:002010-08-12T19:12:42.884+01:00"it is the same as the Consciences that decid..."it is the same as the Consciences that decided to ban slavery - it came to a point where more came to realise that it was an inhumane practise and that the slavery of just one, was a gross indictment of the rest of society."<br /><br />I am never convinced by this. Firstly, because I, like you, am not an advocate of slavery. I presume most people are not these days. I have never had to hypothesise about an entity who tells me this is wrong. Should I have to do so, I would be appalled with myself. After all, if that's the only grounds you have for saying something is wrong, you don't have much of a conscience yourself. But none the less, for millennia, human society DID use slaves. What's your point? Some time in the nineteenth century a little light just popped on in people's heads and they stopped being bad? Not very convincing is it. Anyway, Jesus should have made more of an issue of it if it's such an issue for the Catholic Church. He lived in a slave owning society and said nothing about it. Naughty Jesus! <br /><br />"You were not once a sperm and an egg, Danny. You took chromosomes from both. Both are needed for conception, the beginning of life, to take place. You weren't once a sperm. You weren't once an egg. You and I are a result of a fusion of the two."<br /><br /> Are you seriously telling me that you think having a slightly different arrangement of chromosomes from your parents is all that makes you a morally worthwhile human person? Ok fine, so we can kill one of a set of identical twins then can we? They do not have different DNA, so they must be the same person - one of them is a spare. Of course not. They are two different people. And if I cloned a hundred of you and sent them off around the world to be raised, there would be a hundred different people. That is because (as you well know) having DNA arranged in a slightly different order has f all relevance to your personhood. <br /><br />I presume this is a dead end. You simply have no argument. You vacillate wildly between a meaningless series of biological statements to give your argument a veneer of credibility and wildly presumptuous moral conclusions that are simply not supported by these premises.Dannynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-14141845510903027802010-08-12T19:03:22.664+01:002010-08-12T19:03:22.664+01:00And we don't have the 'right' to take ...And we don't have the 'right' to take that life. <br /><br />It may be a little life, it may seem insignificant, or even nonsensical to you, but that little life in the womb is a member of the human race. That life is dependant upon mothers and fathers, and doctors, in order to live.The Boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10271719805983763595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-41025275507029581792010-08-12T18:59:40.927+01:002010-08-12T18:59:40.927+01:00Not obey me, Danny, but to search their own Consci...Not obey me, Danny, but to search their own Consciences, for that is the place where God is to be found.<br /><br />You don't have to be a Catholic to have one. It is the same as the Consciences that decided to ban slavery - it came to a point where more came to realise that it was an inhumane practise and that the slavery of just one, was a gross indictment of the rest of society.<br /><br />You were not once a sperm and an egg, Danny. You took chromosomes from both. Both are needed for conception, the beginning of life, to take place. You weren't once a sperm. You weren't once an egg. You and I are a result of a fusion of the two. <br /><br />You were once a zygote and so was I.<br /><br />The value of human life is not based on the quality of our personality, nor on our abilities, beauty or status. We (the human family) are just alive, living, and we Catholics would say, created by God for God.The Boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10271719805983763595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-91702549905503431142010-08-12T18:35:59.393+01:002010-08-12T18:35:59.393+01:00"It is like how you and I once were. You'..."It is like how you and I once were. You're only who and what you are now because nobody sucked you out of the womb or flushed you down the toilet."<br /><br />But why does this not apply to the single sperm and the single egg prior to fusion? If 'I' was once a single fertilised egg, surely 'I' was once a sperm and egg. What do you mean anyway - you and I were NOT once an egg in any meaningful sense. We developed from an egg, but it's a surely only a metaphor to say were once WERE eggs. What Laurence like properties did this egg have? Would you mum say 'ah, look at the little Laurence egg, he's got such a great personality."<br /><br />It's a bit like when Dawkins says 'we were once Simian' - metaphorically yes (perhaps), but that doesn't mean 'we' (as we understand ourselves) were actually monkeys having a debate about bananasDannynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-59430129448424873012010-08-12T18:29:39.624+01:002010-08-12T18:29:39.624+01:00"Human life starts at conception"
Neith..."Human life starts at conception"<br /><br />Neither I, nor anyone else with a brain, disputes that human 'life' starts at conception. So does bovine life, or porcine life, of the life of a daffodil, or any other sexually reproducing 'species' (I'll use Andy's insightful term here). None of which tells me anything about morality, which is a matter not of life, or of 'facts' (Andy's key insight again), but of values. <br /><br />The point about the Church is well taken, but you are discussing how to get non-Catholics to obey you because you think that gets you a pat on the head from God. But if they're non-Catholics they will be in trouble anyway when the four horsemen appear. So again, presuming that you are not insane, I have to imagine that you do not only think you have a duty to ban abortion because you are a Catholic, but because there is some solid argument to do so. And I am telling you, there isn't. Or if there is, you don't appear to have itDannynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-86829729801517218982010-08-12T18:27:59.535+01:002010-08-12T18:27:59.535+01:00'There is a huge moral difference between born...'There is a huge moral difference between born and unborn humans. A recently fertilised egg is nothing like you or me.'<br /><br />It is like how you and I once were. You're only who and what you are now because nobody sucked you out of the womb or flushed you down the toilet.The Boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10271719805983763595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-3484375649167023192010-08-12T18:24:05.073+01:002010-08-12T18:24:05.073+01:00Thanks for the clarification. Before you made that...Thanks for the clarification. Before you made that comment, I had been unaware that a human was able to produce another human through the process of sexual reproduction. I can see your point now. Adult humans were once produced by sexual reproduction, and we don’t kill adults, therefore anything produced by the same process must automatically be assigned the same status, right? I’m not quite sure how you think this makes any persuasive moral point. I assume you’re not insane, so it obviously has some force of persuasion with you, but I don’t see why or how this proves anything at all. I’ll do the ‘animal extremist’ thing again: “The unborn cow is, from conception, a member of the ‘species’ cow.” Yep, agreed. Simple biological point there. Doesn’t give me any further information about the moral permissibility of preventing it coming into being though.<br /><br /> In any case a ‘species’ is just an arbitrary way of classifying similar entities on a biological level, but it implies these entities are fully grown. I.e. if babies did not develop into adult humans, they would not have been classified as the same species, because they would not have any properties in common with an adult human. So when biologists say that, they really mean ‘when it’s an adult’. But that’s no reason to insist that a foetus must become an adult. <br /><br />There is a huge moral difference between born and unborn humans. A recently fertilised egg is nothing like you or me. It is an egg with a bit of protein sticking into it. That does not make it a person. The ‘facts’ are not clear. You have no facts to go on, this is a question of interpretation. You interpret an egg with a string of sugar and protein sticking out of it as a person, I do not. I think I am closer to how 99.9999% of people think, but there you go – ‘the World’ is so immoral in these matters ehDannynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-82376389124896645212010-08-12T18:15:48.066+01:002010-08-12T18:15:48.066+01:00You take your views from yourself. You are your on...You take your views from yourself. You are your only point of reference.<br /><br />Catholic take their views from the Catholic Church, the Church established by God Himself, which cannot err in matters of Faith and Morals. I always find this of great comfort because my faith and my morals can go widely off the mark.<br /><br />Human life starts at conception. That is the teaching of the Church and this is one area (but by no means the only area) in which modern science and medicine supports Church teaching. It is sad that modern medicine abuses that fact.<br /><br />There is no other objective point at which human life can start. We have a lot more evidence of that fact from ultrasound and x-ray.<br /><br />People who say, "It's just a clump of cells," do not know what they are talking about.The Boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10271719805983763595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-39490928027383926662010-08-12T17:18:19.373+01:002010-08-12T17:18:19.373+01:00Danny it is really very simple. The unborn child,...Danny it is really very simple. The unborn child, from conception is a member of the human “species”. He is a human being of equivalent value to you or I. (no matter what we smell of)<br /><br />This is a non-controversial position. Please see the references to back this up on our website: <br /><br />http://abort67.co.uk/facts/the-case-against-abortion/biological-case-against-abortion.html<br /><br />There is no moral difference between an unborn and born human being. <br /><br />The facts are clear. The burden is therefore upon you to explain why it is permissible to kill this small defenceless human being.<br /><br />Kind regards,<br />AndyAndy Stephensonhttp://www.abort67.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-31905810553653996852010-08-12T16:54:52.372+01:002010-08-12T16:54:52.372+01:00Fair enough. But next time you are getting your ri...Fair enough. But next time you are getting your righteous knickers in a twist about 'the World' not understanding you, remember, it's because you don't understand yourself. You haven't got a single shred of evidence or logic to support your wacky 'pictures of medical procedures' stunt, so don't be surprised when people get angry at you for doing it. <br /><br />I have no evidence it is wrong to kill a cow, so I don't go around with pictures of butchered animals. If I did, I would expect to have a better argument than 'this is an animal extremist blog, so don't bother asking for any proof of my claims, I'm not interested in arguing, just forcing others to agree with me by underhanded methods of emotive persuasion'<br /><br />By the way, this Abort 67... If you've got a 'head office' directing you from Canada, that would suggest it's not a spontaneous showing of faith, but some well orchestrated attempt to infiltrate the legal system. And I thought you were against social engineering Laurence. ShameDannynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-74969779414902055982010-08-12T16:46:55.598+01:002010-08-12T16:46:55.598+01:00Danny boy,
This is a Catholic blog.
Perhaps you...Danny boy,<br /><br />This is a Catholic blog. <br /><br />Perhaps you missed something with the whole Catholic Church teaching on this matter, but I do not post on abortion and its evils in order to engage those who support abortion in some kind of sixth form debate.<br /><br />The blogpost, rather than asking, 'Is abortion immoral?' was asking, 'How should we best combat this grotesque and murderous attack on the unborn?'<br /><br />It strikes me that you have nothing to contribute on that front, because, to you, the destruction of a human being in the womb of his or her pregnant mother is as important to you dental treatment.<br /><br />So, I ask you politely, unless you have something to add on the debate about how best to raise awareness of the scourge of abortion and to campaign against it...<br /><br />Don't bother commenting.The Boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10271719805983763595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-754121168779282452010-08-12T15:51:50.440+01:002010-08-12T15:51:50.440+01:00Sigh...
"The pro- abortion lobby claim abort...Sigh...<br /><br />"The pro- abortion lobby claim abortion to be a noble choice. They assert that it is a woman’s right to choose, an essential Human Right."<br /><br />Yes. That still has nothing to do with nobility. I think you need a dictionary. By the way, 'pro-abortion' is a slight misnomer. I am not 'pro-bowel surgery', I just don't think this particular medical procedure has any intrinsic relation to morality. Likewise with abortion. I think an awful lot of 'pro' abortion advocates agree with me. The onus is therefore upon you to explain why there is a morally objectionable dimension to this procedure (hint: you can't do that by showing me a picture of the procedure; that suggest that you do not understand the relevant issue). <br /><br />"a woman never makes the decision lightly. Why is that? Why if it is the moral equivalent of tooth extraction does she stress over the “medical procedure”?"<br /><br />I suspect people do not take tooth extraction lightly either. I clean my teeth as a precaution against such a procedure. But if this fails, then I will (with a heavy heart) book an appointment for the necessary medical procedure. Like wise with abortion....<br /><br />"The reason you don’t like looking at human excrement is that it is unpleasant to look at. The reason you don’t like looking at aborted babies is because it makes you feel guilty."<br /><br />No. It's because it is unpleasant to look at. You were right the first time (before you slyly shifted terminology)<br /><br />"There is a difference between watching heart surgery and abortion. One is blood shed to heal, the other shed to kill. There is a world of moral difference between the two."<br /><br />Sorry, stop me if I have made a mistake, but you STILL haven't actually made any persuasive argument to show abortion is a murder. You have just assumed I already agree it is. Like I said before, your main problem here is you seem to have no decent argument, just a lot of ways of insinuating that you do (or hoping if you plead long enough other people will forget that they didn't agree with you before)<br /><br />I" have only ever found people who need to resort to ad hominem attacks are the ones lacking good argument.<br /><br />If my arguments are absurd then I look forward to hear your convincing and well reasoned rebuttals."<br /><br />Problem is, you don't HAVE any arguments. And you smell of weeDannynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-23885100206217129872010-08-12T15:22:10.661+01:002010-08-12T15:22:10.661+01:00Dear Danny,
The pro- abortion lobby claim abortion...Dear Danny,<br />The pro- abortion lobby claim abortion to be a noble choice. They assert that it is a woman’s right to choose, an essential Human Right. But let’s accept your proposition for the sake of argument and go to the other end of the abortion supporting spectrum where abortion is seen as a necessary evil; that a woman never makes the decision lightly. Why is that? Why if it is the moral equivalent of tooth extraction does she stress over the “medical procedure”?<br /><br />No woman should be forced to be a mother. But if the unborn child is a human being then she already is a mother. What is it terminated in the pregnancy? How do they do that? How do you describe abortion?<br /><br />The reason you don’t like looking at human excrement is that it is unpleasant to look at. The reason you don’t like looking at aborted babies is because it makes you feel guilty. There is a difference between watching heart surgery and abortion. One is blood shed to heal, the other shed to kill. There is a world of moral difference between the two.<br /><br />I have only ever found people who need to resort to ad hominem attacks are the ones lacking good argument. <br /><br />If my arguments are absurd then I look forward to hear your convincing and well reasoned rebuttals.<br /><br />Kind regards,<br />AndyAndy Stephensonhttp://www.abort67.co.uknoreply@blogger.com