Post by Ted Post by Rudy Canoza Post by Ted Post by Rudy Canoza Post by Ted Post by Adam A. Wanderer
urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.
It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution
and basic human rights and decency, but by technology.
So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?
No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read
it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.
The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give a
coherent definition of person that would exclude the developing
unborn human being.
The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what creates
a person - the just-born baby is no different physically or mentally
from the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth. We have proved
that mental ability cannot be what makes for a person, because fully
competent adult humans who are in comas or under anesthesia have no
mental ability whatever during the time they are in that state, and
by no means do we declare them not to be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral
ability at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by
some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is intellectually
Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.
Start here, life can only begin at birth: