Top Ten Pull Your Hair Out Arguments

[Meta Knight]

Oh my goodness, Hamster. I...I don't even...wow...excuse me. I need to go vomit.

[Jedidiah]

My daughter was prolife whens she became pregnant at 16. Having to face her Christian parents with her condition, she remained Anti-abortion.

[Rational Gaze]

The apparent willingness of otherwise rational people to be complicit in the wholesale slaughter of otherwise healthy human infants is more or less an abandonment of any semblance of moral values whatsoever. It is almost a tacit admission on the part of the pro-abortionists, in the midst of their arcane rituals in celebration of the sacrifice of their children, whereby they smear themselves with foetal remains as they chant in unison: we want to kill our children for our own selfish reasons, moral values and human worth be damned! Yet, those who dare to speak up in defence of those who have no voice, to protect the innocent from the jingoistic psychopathy of cold-blooded murderers who crave unborn blood, are labelled as “hateful bigots?” The jarring reality is that not only do these people believe that it is permissible for women to murder their children on a whim, but it is their right! What is this insane gibberish that gets passed around at pro-abortion rallies that is met with onerous applause and onanistic chest beating? Presumably cocaine. Lots and lots of cocaine. Pardon me if I am not willing to consign myself to relishing in joyous glee over the death of innocent human beings. I for one am not willing to consign clear moral values of right and wrong to the scrapheap just because a child resulting from an act of sexual reproduction is an “inconvenience.” Here’s a hint, if you a pro-abortionist and don’t want kids, just don’t have sex! Or better still, go to the clinic, tell them that you’re too stupid to be allowed to reproduce and have them sterilise you! At least that way the human race can survive being polluted by your obviously defective genetics.

Okay, so I got a little carried away there, but the point remains that murdering a human child before it is born, regardless of the excuses you have concocted to help you get to sleep at night and silence your conscience, is objectively, demonstrably and morally wrong. One does not lose their moral worth simply by their virtue of being on the wrong side of the womb, and one most definitely does not sacrifice their right to live based on someone else’s loosely defined “right to their own body.” There are no worlds foul enough in the tongues of men to describe such horrific life-destroying myths. Abortion is so morally reprehensible that I truly cannot fathom why anybody would consider it a viable option, let alone allegedly sane, rational persons who claim to uphold enlightened moral values. It is said that the death of a single child is like a holocaust to a mother, yet unborn children are slaughtered in their millions and for no better reason than: “Oh, I don’t feel like having a child now” and so on. Sometimes I wonder whether or not these people are psychopaths or not, as they clearly do not value human life in any meaningful way. Then again, human beings like these came up with the gulags, and hydrogen bombs. Human beings like these thought them up. In a way, I guess I should not be surprised, which just says it all really. If humanity were really as enlightened as Dawkinsian automatons would have us believe, then none of this would occur. I look around at my fellow human beings, and I am ashamed.

[Hamster]

[Teallaura]

When you think it can't get worse...

[Hamster]

ETHICISTS ARGUE IN FAVOR OF ‘AFTER-BIRTH ABORTIONS‘ AS NEWBORNS ’ARE NOT PERSONS’

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethi...e-not-persons/

[Rational Gaze]

<Sarcasm>

Hooray for murder!

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the preceding text was written in jest.

[Jedidiah]

ETHICISTS ARGUE IN FAVOR OF ‘AFTER-BIRTH ABORTIONS‘ AS NEWBORNS ’ARE NOT PERSONS’

Certainly none of us here on TWeb have suggested that this was inevitable. Oh, wait . . . .

[Meta Knight]

ETHICISTS ARGUE IN FAVOR OF ‘AFTER-BIRTH ABORTIONS‘ AS NEWBORNS ’ARE NOT PERSONS’



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethi...e-not-persons/

I'm just going to repeat the comment I put on Facebook about this:

"What slippery slope?"

[Teallaura]

Weeeee!!!!!! Lookie at us! We're sliding to the bottom of the ethical pit! Genocide, next stop!





































































*If you need sarcasm tabs for that, you're a moron.

[Hamster]

“Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.

[...]

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.”

:-)

[Teallaura]

Aw heck... If ya can't beat 'em (you know, with reason and common sense), join 'em!


Potential People Have Rights, Too!!




























If mice and weeds can lay claim to rights, so can 'potential people'.

[Der Kanzler]

6) That's just your religious belief

Definitely this.

Lol, an atheist I know who happens to be pro-life, myself, and two agnostics (IIRC) were arguing against a "Secular Humanist" and she kept calling us all "pious gentlemen". And saying that the government shouldn't interfere in the case of abortion (which is like saying they shouldn't interfere in the case of murder).

[fm93]

My observations are the opposite. One of my former teachers said she was pro-choice, but after becoming pregnant and having her baby, she became pro-life.

Chances are that no one cares about this update, but just for clarification, it's not that she said to my class "I'm pro-choice" and then later became pro-life. Instead, she said to the class "I used to be pro-choice, but after having my baby I became pro-life."