The issues surrounding the thorny topic of abortion

[Roy]

Talk about grossly misleading: only around 1% of abortions performed every year are for rape. The question is, why are liberals trying to use the exception to define the rule?

What, no marshmallows?

[Mountain Man]

Straw? The start of the first conversation happened yesterday. The second conversation is a summary of lilpixofterror's posts on Hiroshima:
"The Japanese were a menace that would have killed millions of people and would not have hesitated if roles were reversed and they had Nukes and the US did not. It is irrelevant if they deserved to die or not because their parents started a war of aggression and were bent on murdering and pillaging everything they could. If you haven't noticed yet, war is a messy and bloody business, but the best way to stop a group of genocidal nut jobs, bent on conquest of the entire plant, is to meet them in kind"


See above.

And here's seer, a pro-lifer, arguing that it was fine for the Israelites to murder the Amelekite children because God told them to and the children might be sacrificed anyway. Sparko and lilpixieofterror (also pro-lifers) approved too, on the grounds that the children would grow up to kill the Israelites and the Israelites didn't have any food for them.

So yes, it is common for Christian pro-lifers to say both that abortion should be banned and that killing children and pregnant women is acceptable if they are either collateral damage, or if keeping them alive is inconvenient.

In your typcial dishonest fashion, you are decoupling statements from their immediate context and pretending that they were intended to be applied universally.

So, yes, you are burning straw.

[Roy]

Here comes 'simplistic pro-lifer', right on cue:

People try to make it complicated, but it's actually a very simple issue that can be summarized in a single question:

Is there anything that can justify killing an innocent human life?

Yes, apparently there is. Medical complications during pregnancy is one such:

"Here in the US, I am not aware of anyone who identifies as pro-life who doesn't believe that legitimate medical complications should be the sole exception."

So now that the answer is 'yes' - which should have been obvious to the person asking the question, had they but tried to answer it as well - we could move on to the actual questions, which are:

1) What circumstances justify killing an innocent human life?

and

2) What constitutes an innocent human life?

But those are too hard for the simplistic pro-lifer, who has already contradicted himself on the first and face-palmed on the second. Which failures are why I am no longer interested in the abortion views of many of the conservative Christians here.

[Gondwanaland]

Incest greatly increases the risk of offspring inheriting two copies of a broken gene and suffering a serious genetic disorder that is recessive in both parents, resulting in non-viability, shortened lifespan or severe disability. This is independent of either rape or medical complications for the mother.

Unless you're talking about a long history of incest in multiple generations, it really doesn't. Two Ashkenazi Jews having a kid together is a much higher risk of such things than a first Gen incestuous relationship.

But interesting you seem to think that children with a shortened lifespan or severe disability should be able to be killed in the womb

[Roy]

People have moral sensibilities that change over time. Few Christians worried about women and children that were killed in ancient wars, and the US had no compunctions about dropping atom bombs on civilians in 1945. But as times change, so do our moral sensibilities.

Not as much as you imply. Many in the US today defend both the ancient genocides and the nuclear strikes, and have no compunctions about drone strikes on civilians today.

[Ronson]

Not as much as you imply. Many in the US today defend both the ancient genocides and the nuclear strikes, and have no compunctions about drone strikes on civilians today.

I haven't met anyone who has defended the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As far as drone strikes, most people are under the impression that they are strategic and only kill GWB's "evil doers."

[Roy]

In your typcial dishonest fashion, you are decoupling statements from their immediate context and pretending that they were intended to be applied universally.

So, yes, you are burning straw.

Says the person who has written both

"Is there anything that can justify killing an innocent human life?"

which is clearly a universal question, and

"Wartime morality is a whole different topic."

which unintentionally answers it in an unintended way.

But ignoring such inconsistencies is the only way to maintain contradictory views.

[Roy]

I haven't met anyone who has defended the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I quoted one earlier.

As far as drone strikes, most people are under the impression that they are strategic and only kill GWB's "evil doers."

Most people in the US, perhaps. The rest of the world has no such illusion.

[Mountain Man]

What, no marshmallows?

In other words, "I know you are, but what am I?" Such a devastating retort.

Of course what I said is not a straw man. Whenever the topic of abortion is discussed, and conservatives express their general objection, almost without fail, liberals will come back with, "But what about rape? Huh? Huh? Huh?" as if that was their only concern. They want abortion in all situations but try to get the conservative to compromise on rape, and then use that one concession as the proverbial camel's nose under the tent flap. From there, they try to eke out just one more "minor" concession after another in an attempt to lead the conservative down a slippery slope.

So what I said is true: liberals want to use the exception of rape to define the rules for abortion.

I, of course, do not believe the evil of rape justifies the even greater evil of killing an innocent human life, so that ploy won't get anywhere with me.

[Roy]

But interesting you seem to think that children with a shortened lifespan or severe disability should be able to be killed in the womb

I said no such thing. I simply described the situation, being careful not to include any suggestions about how it should be acted on. You are making assumptions based on your pre-existing bias.

[Mountain Man]

Says the person who has written both

"Is there anything that can justify killing an innocent human life?"

which is clearly a universal question, and

"Wartime morality is a whole different topic."

which unintentionally answers it in an unintended way.

But ignoring such inconsistencies is the only way to maintain contradictory views.

I made no comment one way or the other about watime morality, merely noted that it's an entirely different subject from abortion, so I'm not sure how you can claim that my views on the matter are contradictory.

[Roy]

Of course what I said is not a straw man. Whenever the topic of abortion is discussed, and conservatives express their general objection, almost without fail, liberals will come back with, "But what about rape? Huh? Huh? Huh?" as if that was their only concern. They want abortion in all situations ...

The poll results posted a couple of days ago show that this is untrue.

Not that untruthfulness ever stopped you.

So what I said is true: liberals want to use the exception of rape to define the rules for abortion.

It's not true. You'd class me as a liberal, and I don't want to do that.

But you're blinkered to the point of unconvinceablenes.

I'll just note that I'm being called 'dishonest' by some-one posting falsehoods.

[Roy]

I made no comment one way or the other about watime morality, merely noted that it's an entirely different subject from abortion, so I'm not sure how you can claim that my views on the matter are contradictory.

By not being restricted by your lack of intellect.

[Mountain Man]

The poll results posted a couple of days ago show that this is untrue.

Not that untruthfulness ever stopped you.

It's not true. You'd class me as a liberal, and I don't want to do that.

But you're blinkered to the point of unconvinceablenes.

I'll just note that I'm being called 'dishonest' by some-one posting falsehoods.

I have no idea what poll you're referring to. I'm simply talking from my own personal experience and observations.

I will note with a sense of irony that your first several posts in the parallel lthread about abortion focused exclusively on the subject of rape.

To paraphrase Shakespeare, "The lad doth protest too much, methinks."

[Gondwanaland]

I said no such thing. I simply described the situation, being careful not to include any suggestions about how it should be acted on. You are making assumptions based on your pre-existing bias.

You did say such a thing because you brought it up as a reason for abortion in cases of consensual incest that don't involve rape. You ain't squirming out of this one