Originally posted by nyj
What is with you little snot-nosed brats? No, I didn't read all 33 darn pages of this thread. I read the opening page and then I read from my replies onward. So yes, I missed most of Mallory's little snide remarks and combative and insulting manner.
Wow. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. As you call us "snot-nosed brats".
As for you Ms. Mallory, my compromise is not a "total and complete victory" on your part. Under no conditions is an abortion ever right. If the taking of a life is wrong in one instance, it is wrong in all instances, though I think that no one would disagree that instances all carry their own particular weight.
You obviously have a hard time getting your mind around the concept that abortions for medical reasons are NON-EXISTANT in this day of advanced medical procedures, which leaves you a minute leg to stand on as it pertains to rape victims.
That is SO NOT TRUE! Women have still life-threatening pregnancies. They're rare, but they're far from "non-existant"
My "compromise" is 100% pro-life because it prohibits 99% of all abortions from the very get-go and the pro-life contingent can easily then direct all efforts are staving off the final 1%.
And why would we want to stave off the final 1% of all abortions? Because abortion, and all the silly hypothetical situations you want to contrive, is wrong.
Oh, well if it's WRONG, then okay...
Your compromise was that if I agree that all convenience abortions should be abolished you would agree that abortions in the case of life-threatening pregnancies and rape should be allowed. I agree.
Abortion is always a tragedy, and it's never "right", but that wasn't my question was it? My question, if you even bothered to read it, was "when is it okay"? This whole thread was about "silly hypothetical situations". Maybe you should tell that nine-year-old rape victim what a "silly hypothetical situation" she's in.
Upvote
0