• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This is it. [W:272]

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,235
Reaction score
8,380
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is." - Catholic Nun Explains Pro-Life In A Way That Will Stun Many (Especially Republican Lawmakers)

I actually agree with this.
 
Re: This is it.

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is." - Catholic Nun Explains Pro-Life In A Way That Will Stun Many (Especially Republican Lawmakers)

I actually agree with this.



This isn't it.

What this is a rehash of what we've all heard many times before.

:roll:
 
Re: This is it.

This isn't it.

What this is a rehash of what we've all heard many times before.

:roll:

I'm not sure if it's "it", but it is pretty spot on in many ways.

Most of the hard-core pro-life advocates don't give a rat's ass about circumstances or the future. They have a very black & white view that clouds the rest of reality.

This is exactly why some are opposed to aborting pregnancies that result from rape and/or incest.
It's also why some oppose the use of Plan-B which prevents conception, but don't you dare tell them facts like that, they just call it abortion regardless of facts.

They screech about welfare, taxes, education, single parents, drug abuse, alcoholics, lower-class/poverty, personal responsibility, and the morals/ethics around social programs and in the same voice, regardless of a woman's situation they rather force her to have a baby than allow her to terminate the pregnancy.

They'd prefer that a prostitute, strung out on crack-cocaine, who's also living on welfare and who can't take care of a cat let alone a baby be forced to see a pregnancy through to delivery than have access to Plan-B.

They don't really give a flyin crap what kind of life the baby might have to endure. The levels of abuse or neglect the child might have to suffer.

All they care about is sitting on their little sanctimonious soapbox and trying to force their religious dogma down other peoples throats.

So I see exactly what the OP's quotes are saying. Makes perfect sense.
 
Re: This is it.

This isn't it.

What this is a rehash of what we've all heard many times before.

:roll:

You're wrong and you're right. Yes, it is "it," and yes, it is a rehash of what we've all heard, and said, and typed thousands of times before... because it is "it" and it always has been. They are pro-birth, pro-keeping-women-down, but they are not pro-life, once the fetus is out and woman is responsible for its future.
 
Re: This is it.

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is." - Catholic Nun Explains Pro-Life In A Way That Will Stun Many (Especially Republican Lawmakers)

I actually agree with this.

Good for her!
I have viewed it as pro-fetus.
 
Re: This is it.

You're wrong and you're right. Yes, it is "it," and yes, it is a rehash of what we've all heard, and said, and typed thousands of times before... because it is "it" and it always has been. They are pro-birth, pro-keeping-women-down, but they are not pro-life, once the fetus is out and woman is responsible for its future.

They are just like the Al Bundy, before birth it was "Hail Baby" and afterwards nothing. In a lot of republican politicians it is "hail fetus" because after the fetus becomes an infant it is "your baby, your problem, not ours".
 
Re: This is it.

I'm not sure if it's "it", but it is pretty spot on in many ways.

Most of the hard-core pro-life advocates don't give a rat's ass about circumstances or the future.
You don't know that. Heck, no one can know that, pro-life or anti-life. In the first place, "circumstances" can ONLY refer to the present in this rationale - but it's a very poor excuse for justifying the terminating of life - and second only to the rationale of "the future."

Anyone who presumes to know the future, theirs or anyone else's, is putting themselves into the role of an all-knowing, all-seeing god - which is the epitome of irony in this discussion, given how those same people express utter disdain for those who do hold human life sacred on the basis of their belief in God.

They have a very black & white view that clouds the rest of reality.
Life or death IS black and white my friend. There is no in-between. Either one holds human life as sacred and precious or they don't. Period.

The alternative is to hold that some human lives are less important than others - and to justify such belief on the basis of arbitrary, wholly subjective criteria.

This is exactly why some are opposed to aborting pregnancies that result from rape and/or incest.
Again, life or death isn't relative, it's an absolute. Moreover, rape or incest is a crime committed against the woman; the baby that may result is a completely different individual. Executing the baby because of a crime committed against someone else is the height of injustice.

It's also why some oppose the use of Plan-B which prevents conception, but don't you dare tell them facts like that, they just call it abortion regardless of facts.
Again, it either is a human life or it isn't. There is no in-between. By such rationale as the pro-abortion crowd dogmatically proffers, toddlers [must] rate differently on the scale of "being human" than adolescents, or adults, or the elderly. There's just no rational way of getting around that fact - having been conceived is a common denominator of ALL levels of humanity. You either "ARE" or you "AREN'T."

They screech about welfare, taxes, education, single parents, drug abuse, alcoholics, lower-class/poverty, personal responsibility, and the morals/ethics around social programs and in the same voice, regardless of a woman's situation they rather force her to have a baby than allow her to terminate the pregnancy.
Well let's be perfectly clear [and fair] here - the other side screeches just as much about welfare, taxes, education, single parents, drug abuse, alcoholics, lower-class/poverty, personal responsibility and morals and ethics too, do you not?

But let's be honest, those are completely different arguments and issues than the prevention of or permission to terminate the life of a baby.

They'd prefer that a prostitute, strung out on crack-cocaine, who's also living on welfare and who can't take care of a cat let alone a baby be forced to see a pregnancy through to delivery than have access to Plan-B.

They don't really give a flyin crap what kind of life the baby might have to endure. The levels of abuse or neglect the child might have to suffer.
One, you don't know that.
Two, you can't possibly know that.
Three, you can't possibly know what kind of life the baby (and thank you for acknowledging it for what it is - a baby) may or may not have to endure, what abuse or neglect it may or may not have to suffer.

How can you possibly know that?

And EVEN IF we were somehow able to divine the "kind of life" a baby "might" have - is that really an excuse to terminate its life? Is the POTENTIAL for struggle, for suffering an excuse for killing? More than that, such a "final solution" presumes NO POSSIBILITY of rising above such suffering or abuse, NO POSSIBILITY of improving their lot in life.

You couched your own argument with indefinite terms ("may," "might," "may or may not") and so are using indefinite rationale to justify a definite "solution." How is that remotely just or fair? I mean, good grief.

All they care about is sitting on their little sanctimonious soapbox and trying to force their religious dogma down other peoples throats.
And how, pray tell is YOUR stance not equally sanctimonious and dogmatic? Honestly, listen to yourself. Read your arguments, your tone, your utterly intractable stance.
 
Re: This is it.

And how, pray tell is YOUR stance not equally sanctimonious and dogmatic?

Quite simple.

Each and every woman (and/or couple) and her doctor should be FREE to make whatever CHOICE they deem to be the most responsible CHOICE for their specific circumstances.

If you don't "get" that I can't help you.
 
Re: This is it.

Well, that's half of it, yes. And it's one of the many reasons I don't believe for one second that anti-choicers give a crap about children.

But of course, the other half is the woman they'd force to suffer and possibly even die, which no one in their camp -- even this unusually charitable nun -- gives a crap about.

I don't see any evidence most anti-choicers really give a damn about anything except punishing women who have the audacity to enjoy their sex lives and make their own decisions without begging the permission of a man.

Most allow exceptions for rape, and if they really believe an embryo is a person, that's like saying that if someone assaults me, I can kill their child. That's insane. And yet simultaneously, a significant chunk of them would also deny medically advised abortions for women whose fetuses are already dead or dying. There's nothing to "save" in these cases, so obviously they aren't trying to protect the fetus -- the fetus is already doomed. So I don't believe they give a crap about ZEF's (and I don't believe they really think that they're people).

Most don't care about the conditions the children they'd force into the world will live under, and many even actively want assistance to be taken from women and children. So I don't believe they give a crap about children.

Many of them support "paper abortions" for men, or don't so much hate choice as they do wish the man was the one who got to make it. Clearly it's not about "responsibility," since the focus is more on giving men control of women, rather than making both of them responsible for a child. So I don't believe they give a crap about "responsibility."

The anti-choice position inherently rejects that the well-being of women matters at all, since the entire premise of the position is to force women to risk their health to be stuck with a child they can't support. So obviously they don't give a crap about women.

If they don't give a crap about ZEF's, children, women, or "responsibility," well, what's left?

After all my years debating them, it all seems to boil down to this for about 90% of them: as long as a woman suffers during sex, then it's ok for her to abort. But if she enjoys herself, then children -- and sometimes even already-dead fetuses -- are simply weapons to punish sluts with. Just tools to bring pain, poverty, and death to women who enjoy sex. It is straight-up misogyny, and has more to do with denying women joy and agency than any kind of concern for ZEF's or children.

There is no angle from which their position is actually pro-life in any capacity, which is why I don't call them such.

There is literally nothing to it for most of them except "punish sluts," and this screaming anger that women have some kind of agency over their relationships and their bodies.

The OP is marginally better. Maybe one of 2 or 3 anti-choicers I've ever heard of who cares about ANYTHING beyond that. But it still displays a complete blind spot for the value of the woman herself.

There's one universal to the anti-choice position, which is true even of the very best of them: they do not care anything for the woman. Not physically, not emotionally, not intellectually. There is no way you can support forced birthing and care about women in any capacity at the same time.

And even if you are one of the one-in-a-hundred anti's who cares about children, you will never succeed in giving them good homes if you care nothing for the woman, which you can't possibly do if you support forced birthing.

I appreciate that this nun has some kind of compassion somewhere in her body, but her mission is short-sighted and doomed to failure. You cannot support children while trying to destroy the women who raise them.
 
Last edited:
Re: This is it.

This is exactly why some are opposed to aborting pregnancies that result from rape and/or incest.
It's also why some oppose the use of Plan-B which prevents conception, but don't you dare tell them facts like that, they just call it abortion regardless of facts.

....

...

Again, life or death isn't relative, it's an absolute. Moreover, rape or incest is a crime committed against the woman; the baby that may result is a completely different individual. Executing the baby because of a crime committed against someone else is the height of injustice.
....

If plan B is used before the ovulation all Plan B does is delay the ovulation.
If a human egg has already been fertilized Plan B will not prevent the fertilized egg from implanting.

If the woman is already pregnant , Plan B will not cause an abortion since Plan just has a synthetic harm one progesterone in it.
Progesterone is needed to help in implanting the fertilized egg and keeping the egg implanted.

~~~~~~
There was a abortion reversal law in Arizona( it was put on hold in June of this year) which required doctors to tell patients who were given the 2 part abortion pills if they changed their minds after the first pill they could take 21 shots of progesterone to try to reverse the abortion.

Arizona's 'abortion reversal' law put on hold

I posted this on the thread about the law being on hold.


Re: Arizona's 'abortion reversal' law put on hold

An interesting side note for the pro lifers who think Plan B causes abortions.
I have been posting here Plan B only has progesterone in it.
That it delays ovulation but if the woman is already pregnant it does not prohibit implantation and will not harm the pregnancy.
If the woman is already pregnant chances are Plan B "might" aid in keeping the pregnancy.

Plan B 0ne-Step. Emergency contraceptive pills utilize a medication that is similar to a hormone produced by the ovaries. The hormone produced by the ovaries is progesterone and a similar component in Plan B One-Step is levonorgestrel (a progestin). Plan B, a two dose regimen, was approved by the FDA for use in the United States in 1999. Plan B One-Step, a one dose regimen, was approved by the FDA in 2009

Plan B/Emergency Contraception - McKinley Health Center - University of Illinois
 
Last edited:
Re: This is it.

I agree. I have found a lot of "pro-life" don't care much about the life once it is out of the womb.

That is certainly not the case for all of them. As much as I dislike the Catholic church, I have met plenty of Catholics who are not only against abortion, they are also against the death penalty and are in favor of welfare programs to help underprivileged mothers and who support programs to facilitate adoption. I disagree with their stance on abortion but I don't consider them hypocrites for calling themselves "pro-life".
 
Re: This is it.

I agree. I have found a lot of "pro-life" don't care much about the life once it is out of the womb.

That is certainly not the case for all of them. As much as I dislike the Catholic church, I have met plenty of Catholics who are not only against abortion, they are also against the death penalty and are in favor of welfare programs to help underprivileged mothers and who support programs to facilitate adoption. I disagree with their stance on abortion but I don't consider them hypocrites for calling themselves "pro-life".
That is the difference between prolife and profetus.
 
Re: This is it.

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is." - Catholic Nun Explains Pro-Life In A Way That Will Stun Many (Especially Republican Lawmakers)

I actually agree with this.

Ignorance in the Catholic Church knows no bounds. This is just an extension of the Pope's idiocy of late.

Just for balance, try reading up on the Nuns and the Archbishop in Los Angeles fighting over the sale of the Nuns' palatial estate that the Nuns want to sell to a land developer to create a posh hotel for the super rich and the Archbishop wants to sell to Katy Perry.

This palatial estate happens to be a property that was donated to the Nuns by a faithful Catholic who wanted it to go to help the community. Funny, neither the Nuns nor the Archbishop want to donate it to an agency that feeds, clothes, educates poor or abandoned children.

I'm sick and tired of the moralizing of those in the Catholic Church. As I've said before, the minute they divest themselves of all worldly goods and treasures - the hundreds of $billions if not $trillions of assets and art and other treasures they own and control - is the minute I give a rats ass about their self-important moralizing about what other people should do.
 
Re: This is it.

Ignorance in the Catholic Church knows no bounds. This is just an extension of the Pope's idiocy of late.

Just for balance, try reading up on the Nuns and the Archbishop in Los Angeles fighting over the sale of the Nuns' palatial estate that the Nuns want to sell to a land developer to create a posh hotel for the super rich and the Archbishop wants to sell to Katy Perry.

This palatial estate happens to be a property that was donated to the Nuns by a faithful Catholic who wanted it to go to help the community. Funny, neither the Nuns nor the Archbishop want to donate it to an agency that feeds, clothes, educates poor or abandoned children.

I'm sick and tired of the moralizing of those in the Catholic Church. As I've said before, the minute they divest themselves of all worldly goods and treasures - the hundreds of $billions if not $trillions of assets and art and other treasures they own and control - is the minute I give a rats ass about their self-important moralizing about what other people should do.

:applaud
 
Re: This is it.

Ignorance in the Catholic Church knows no bounds. This is just an extension of the Pope's idiocy of late.

Just for balance, try reading up on the Nuns and the Archbishop in Los Angeles fighting over the sale of the Nuns' palatial estate that the Nuns want to sell to a land developer to create a posh hotel for the super rich and the Archbishop wants to sell to Katy Perry.

This palatial estate happens to be a property that was donated to the Nuns by a faithful Catholic who wanted it to go to help the community. Funny, neither the Nuns nor the Archbishop want to donate it to an agency that feeds, clothes, educates poor or abandoned children.

I'm sick and tired of the moralizing of those in the Catholic Church. As I've said before, the minute they divest themselves of all worldly goods and treasures - the hundreds of $billions if not $trillions of assets and art and other treasures they own and control - is the minute I give a rats ass about their self-important moralizing about what other people should do.

Yes because one person represents the entire Catholic church and it's mistakes by making one comment. :roll:

Get a real argument that is not a giant straw man and come on back.
 
Re: This is it.

This isn't it.

What this is a rehash of what we've all heard many times before.

:roll:

Considering I don't frequent this part of the forum... who cares? As far as I am concerned it is it and your opinion is duly noted and ignored.
 
Re: This is it.

Anyone who presumes to know the future, theirs or anyone else's, is putting themselves into the role of an all-knowing, all-seeing god - which is the epitome of irony in this discussion, given how those same people express utter disdain for those who do hold human life sacred on the basis of their belief in God.

And that certainly applies to those that believe the woman should just suck it up and have a kid she cant afford or isnt prepared for. They have no way of knowing how seriously it will impact her life, up to and including taking her life or significant damage to her health. Others have no right to 'play God' there.
 
Re: This is it.

The alternative is to hold that some human lives are less important than others - and to justify such belief on the basis of arbitrary, wholly subjective criteria.

Yes, and this is a valid position. Esp when you consider the costs to the life, health, and future of the woman, including the impacts on her family (most women who have abortions already have at least 1 child).

Under our Constitution, according to a person's inalienable and civil rights, the born and unborn cannot be treated equally. Is there a reason you feel that the unborn are more entitled to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, self-determination than women?

Or is it a logical (not arbitrary) balance to recognize these things for those that have been born and can independently exercise these rights without infringing on the rights of another?

Because they are not yet complete, have yet to develop the attributes beyond DNA that will make them *more* than human and may not even survive to be born to do so (15-20% are miscarried). They have not achieved the physical and mental attributes that do contribute to the status of born people as 'persons' under the law. It's not necessarily negative or positive....just fact. Until birth or at least viability, the unborn are less. To compare born persons to the unborn is to imply the born are 'less' as well.

So yes, I consider born lives more important.
 
Re: This is it.

This thread is a good example of why I tend to stay out of abortion threads. Everyone assumes you're at one extreme or the other and proceeds to beat up their usual straw-men accordingly.


If your view on abortion take more than one short paragraph to explain, people don't know how to deal with you.
 
Re: This is it.

Either one holds human life as sacred and precious or they don't. Period.

Your 'period' is nothing more than your opinion, your judgement.

And 'sacred' implies a belief in a higher authority. Not all Americans share, or are required to share, beliefs in religion or other personal beliefs, and certainly not be subjected to them against their will.

You seem to be happy to demand we recognize the black and white science of human DNA making up 'human lives' here, yet then need to appeal to a belief system in order to place value on that human life. Because science does not...biology is simply biology and in this case, developing stages of Homo sapiens.

Value judgements however, are subjective.
 
Re: This is it.

Yes because one person represents the entire Catholic church and it's mistakes by making one comment. :roll:

Get a real argument that is not a giant straw man and come on back.

Sorry you didn't understand my argument. It wasn't directed at you personally, although I did quote you as the author of the OP - my comments were directed at the Catholic Church, not individual Catholics, whom I find to be much more generous, understanding, rational and realistic in their approach to worldly issues. Mine is not a strawman argument - it's how I feel about every pronouncement from the Catholic Church or any representative of the Church.
 
Re: This is it.

Sorry you didn't understand my argument. It wasn't directed at you personally, although I did quote you as the author of the OP - my comments were directed at the Catholic Church, not individual Catholics, whom I find to be much more generous, understanding, rational and realistic in their approach to worldly issues. Mine is not a strawman argument - it's how I feel about every pronouncement from the Catholic Church or any representative of the Church.

OK. Thanks for filling me in. It had nothing to do with my post so I admit I was confused!
 
Re: This is it.

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is." - Catholic Nun Explains Pro-Life In A Way That Will Stun Many (Especially Republican Lawmakers)

I actually agree with this.

I’ve already said what I have to say about Sister Joan here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/abort...thood-videos-disturbing-2.html#post1064876979

No matter how many times those who are pro-life talk about the initiatives to take help mothers and young families, including with housing and job training, and offer information to support their claims, the lie is repeated.

And so I would like ask all to believe that those who are pro-life care only about the unborn to offer evidence. What do you do personally that is somehow “more”? Do you give more of your talent, treasure, and time? Do you know people who are active in the pro-life movement and what their charitable efforts are?

How do you respond to this excerpt from a Public Discoursearticle entitled “The Lazy Slander of the Pro-Life Cause”?:

No major pro-abortion group or institution has taken on a comparable commitment to vulnerable Americans. Pregnancy resource centers devote significant resources to supporting women who have already decided to have an abortion, but abortion advocates offer no similar support to women who wish to continue their pregnancies. Indeed, they often devote their resources to shutting down the services provided by pro-lifers. NARAL Pro-Choice America reports spending twenty thousand dollars on “crisis pregnancy centers” in Maryland in order to “investigate” and publicly smear such centers for demonstrating a bias for life. (One might point out that the same bias once motivated the entire medical profession.)

The article provides information on various prolife charitable efforts for those who might genuinely be interested in learning a little. Meanwhile, how do you respond to this observation?

“If pro-life Americans provide so many (often free) services to the poor and vulnerable—work easily discovered by any researcher or journalist with an Internet connection—why are they sometimes accused of caring only for life inside the womb? Quite possibly, it is the conviction of abortion advocates that “caring for the born” translates first and always into advocacy for government programs and funds. In other words, abortion advocates appear to conflate charitable works and civil society with government action. The pro-life movement does not. Rather, it takes up the work of assisting women and children and families, one fundraiser and hotline and billboard at a time.” http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2380/

Some statistics on who gives what: https://philanthropy.com/article/America-s-Generosity-Divide/156175
 
Re: This is it.

I’ve already said what I have to say about Sister Joan here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/abort...thood-videos-disturbing-2.html#post1064876979

No matter how many times those who are pro-life talk about the initiatives to take help mothers and young families, including with housing and job training, and offer information to support their claims, the lie is repeated.

And so I would like ask all to believe that those who are pro-life care only about the unborn to offer evidence. What do you do personally that is somehow “more”? Do you give more of your talent, treasure, and time? Do you know people who are active in the pro-life movement and what their charitable efforts are?

How do you respond to this excerpt from a Public Discoursearticle entitled “The Lazy Slander of the Pro-Life Cause”?:

No major pro-abortion group or institution has taken on a comparable commitment to vulnerable Americans. Pregnancy resource centers devote significant resources to supporting women who have already decided to have an abortion, but abortion advocates offer no similar support to women who wish to continue their pregnancies. Indeed, they often devote their resources to shutting down the services provided by pro-lifers. NARAL Pro-Choice America reports spending twenty thousand dollars on “crisis pregnancy centers” in Maryland in order to “investigate” and publicly smear such centers for demonstrating a bias for life. (One might point out that the same bias once motivated the entire medical profession.)

The article provides information on various prolife charitable efforts for those who might genuinely be interested in learning a little. Meanwhile, how do you respond to this observation?

“If pro-life Americans provide so many (often free) services to the poor and vulnerable—work easily discovered by any researcher or journalist with an Internet connection—why are they sometimes accused of caring only for life inside the womb? Quite possibly, it is the conviction of abortion advocates that “caring for the born” translates first and always into advocacy for government programs and funds. In other words, abortion advocates appear to conflate charitable works and civil society with government action. The pro-life movement does not. Rather, it takes up the work of assisting women and children and families, one fundraiser and hotline and billboard at a time.” http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2380/

Some statistics on who gives what: https://philanthropy.com/article/America-s-Generosity-Divide/156175

This is funny. You don't disagree with her comment... but instead just try to disparage her character because of her views and opinions on other subjects?

I do not disagree with Sister Joan. But for those who don’t know who she is, let’s just say that she has views that are at odds with her own church on living together, adultery, Humanae Vitae, and etc. And, by the way, her church seems to do a lot of feeding, educating, and helping to house kids. And others.

Sorry you lose on this one.
 
Last edited:
Re: This is it.

Either one holds human life as sacred and precious or they don't.
Sacred eh? Why is it that only human life would be so?

The alternative is to hold that some human lives are less important than others - and to justify such belief on the basis of arbitrary, wholly subjective criteria.
IS it any more subjective than declaring that it and only it is sacred?

Again, it either is a human life or it isn't
So what if it is human life? So were all the lives taken by wars, famine, neglect etc. etc all preventable. Or how about all those executed were those not human lives?

But let's be honest
Better yet, lets be honest and educated and your post is not.
 
Back
Top Bottom